Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill.
Bristol Waterworks Bill.

Bills committed.

Public Trustee (General Deposit Fund) Bill,

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd day of December, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

Public Trustee (General Deposit Fund) Bill.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Blackburn) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hastings) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leyton) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Luton Extension) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

London Passenger Transport Board Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Walsall Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will direct that the rule limiting the employment of ex-service men under the Royal Engineers at Corsham to applicants under 45 years of age be cancelled, in view of the fact that in Bristol there are over 2,000 ex-service men over this age who are qualified to carry out any class of manual labour?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Since my hon. and gallant Friend put his question on 31st January last, I have caused further inquiries to be made, and I am reinforced in the view that any relaxation of the rule would be at the expense of the speed with which the work in question should, in the public interest, be accomplished. Were the urgency of the work to permit of meeting my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, I should be most happy to do so. My information as to the number of available ex-service men over 45 years of age in the district does not correspond with the figure in the question.

Sir A. Knox: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that a hard-and-fast rule like this is not really sound, as there are very many men over 45 years of age who are much more able to do a hard day's work than are some younger men?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I quite agree in principle, but I had to meet the view of the officer in charge of these works, based on experience. Perhaps it would please my hon. and gallant Friend to know that there are already 875 ex-service men on these works over 45 years of age.

Mr. Day: Is the officer in charge over 45 years of age?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not know.

Mr. Paling: What kind of work of national importance involving great physical strain is it that men of 45 are not fit for?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The nature of the work has not yet been publicly revealed, but it is work of very great national importance, involving great physical strain.

Mr. Paling: Is it any harder than working in a pit? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men of 45 have performed that work quite satisfactorily over a long number of years?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have already pointed out to the House that there are nearly 1,000 ex-service men over 45 engaged on this work.

Mr. Paling: Can we know exactly the kind of work that these people cannot do?

Sir A. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that of all the Government Departments, the War Office is the only one that insists on a hard-and-fast rule like this?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would like my hon. and gallant Friend to appreciate the position, because we do our best for the ex-service men, and the rule only applies on a particular part of the work. If my hon. and gallant Friend would like to see it, I should be most ready to make arrangements for him to do so. Perhaps he will communicate with me again.

RECRUITING FILM.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War the reasons why the cooperation of the War Office was refused in the production of the recruiting film entitled "The Spirit that is England," put forward by British Fine Art Pictures, Limited?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The synopsis of the film in question was carefully examined, but its value for recruiting purposes was not considered to be sufficiently high to warrant the granting of the extensive facilities requested in connection with its production.

Mr. Mander: Are the War Office prepared in principle to co-operate in the production of recruiting films?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Certainly, and we have done so.

Mr. Mander: Will the War Office be prepared to discuss the possibility of alterations in the present film?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will certainly discuss them with my hon. Friend.

INFANTRY RECRUITS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War particulars of the number of recruits required to complete the recruiting establishment of the infantry of the line at the present time.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: On 1st February the deficit on the recruiting establishment of the infantry of the line, Regular Army, was approximately 7,000.

Mr. Day: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the progress that is being made satisfactory?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, and it is far in excess of any estimate that I have given.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT UNITS, LONDON.

Mr. Dingle Foot: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Press were requested by his Department not to mention the movement of certain anti-aircraft units from Lichfield to London prior to a speech by the Secretary of State at the Guildhall in which he revealed that such movements had taken place?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The information in question was communicated by the War Office to the Press, and it was accompanied by a request that it should not be printed pending a statement to be made by me in the city of London. The request was made in order that representatives of the 1st Anti-Aircraft Division and of the City and County Territorial Associations might receive from me an explanation of the reasons for the move, and that all newspapers should be treated on an equal footing.

Mr. Foot: Was there any reason for keeping the actual news of this movement secret except the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was making a speech?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have already answered that question. This information was communicated by the War Office to the Press, and it was requested that it should not be printed except after a certain hour when all newspapers could have it equally.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend realise how much better it would be if we could have a little less "I" and a little more "We"?

TROOPER'S DEATH, WANTAGE.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information in connection with the death of a trooper belonging to the 9th Lancers at Wantage, Berkshire; and what action he is taking in view of the statement made by the foreman of the jury at the inquest?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have called for a report and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

CONTRACTS.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his Department now makes all contracts with manufacturers direct instead of through merchants as formerly, and whether, as the price is the same and acredited merchants have facilities for prompt and better delivery owing to the wide range of their business, he will resume the former practice, if necessary, stipulating that orders shall be placed as far as practicable in distressed areas?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: There has been no change in the Department's policy, which is to buy on the most economical terms, and, generally speaking, it has been found that these are obtained by dealing direct with manufacturers. Other things being equal, preference is given to goods manufactured in distressed areas, and this policy can be controlled more effectively by purchasing direct from the makers than by placing orders through agents.

Sir P. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is not the general trade experience, and why should the experience of the War Office be different?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: My hon. Friend suggests that there has been some change in policy, but the tenor of my answer is that there has been none whatever.

Sir P. Hurd: Not in policy, but in practice?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir.

NATIONAL SERVICE (EX-NON- COMMISSIONED OFFICERS).

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware

that in the National Service Guidebook no specific reference is made to the part which could most usefully be played by former non-commissioned officers; that such officers were in great demand in the early stages of the Great War; and whether he will arrange for such as are willing to volunteer to be specially registered for training purposes?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Arrangements already exist for the inclusion of eligible former warrant and non-commissioned officers in the Army Reserve. They are informed personally.

EMERGENCY HOSPITALS.

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he can now make a statement as to the result of his consultation with other interested Departments as to the acceptance or refusal of offers of buildings for emergency hospitals in time of war; and whether he will state which these Departments are and who ultimately decides on acceptance or refusal;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that only two of 131 buildings offered for use as emergency hospitals in war have hitherto been inspected, he proposes to order the inspection of the rest of them; and whether it is the intention of the War Office definitely to decide what hospitals shall be used in case of war before hostilities commence?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The limited number of the buildings in question which appear suitable will be inspected. The buildings which, after inspection, are found suitable will be notified to the Ministry of Health or the Department of Health for Scotland and the Office of Works, and, subject to their agreement, will be earmarked. In the case of buildings found not to be suitable for the War Office, the suggestion is made that the offers might be renewed to the Ministry of Health or the Department of Health for Scotland. My hon. Friend will understand that the War Office is providing its own basic requirements for hospital accommodation independently of these offers.

Sir G. Fox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in cases where it has been asked that buildings offered for use as auxiliary military hospitals should be inspected, people have been told by some-


one in his Department that there will not be any inspection until an emergency arises?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If my hon. Friend has any case in mind, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

TAYLORS' HALL, EDINBURGH.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any further statement about the efforts of the City Council of Edinburgh to preserve the street front of Taylors' Hall on Cowgate?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): A meeting was held on the 6th of this month between the Department of Health and representatives of the corporation and of the National Trust for Scotland. Since then, one of the corporation's sub-committees has decided to recommend the corporation not to agree to a further proposal made by the trust for the preservation of the building. In the meantime, the corporation have been served with an order by the Dean of Guild Court requiring the dangerous upper structure to be partially dismantled and the buildings otherwise made secure.

Mr. Hannah: Is it not a fearful reflection on the corporation that a building which has belonged to them for so many years is in such a disgraceful condition of repair?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is a Tory corporation?

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1926.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is prepared to set up a committee of inquiry to consider the working of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926, with a view to its amendment to give more adequate protection to the agricultural industry, with particular reference to lime supplies?

Mr. Wedderburn: In view of representations which my right hon. Friend has received, he is in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, on the question whether a committee could

be appointed for the purposes stated by the hon. Member.

Mr. Westwood: Can the hon. Gentleman say what was the resolution of the conference held by the County Councils' Association on a short amending Bill to save this exploitation of the farmers by those who are alleged to be their friends?

Mr. Wedderburn: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down. I do not know the result of that conference.

EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATES (EDUCATION AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES).

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give the names of all the education authorities who have prepared provisional schemes for granting employment certificates under Section 2 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1936; and the employment they have determined shall not be considered as beneficial?

Mr. Wedderburn: Certain education authorities have prepared or are now engaged in preparing plans for dealing with applications for employment certificates, but as Section 2 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1936, does not require the formal submission of these plans, particulars are not readily available. I am, however, making inquiries and will communicate the results to the hon. Member.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the numbers of old age pensioners who were in receipt of public assistance in Scotland as at 15th January, 1939; and the approximate annual cost of the relief so granted?

Mr. Wedderburn: The number of old age pensioners in Scotland who were in receipt of public assistance at 15th November, 1938, the latest date for which the information is available, was 43,182. The cost of the relief granted is not available, nor is an estimate possible from the information available in my Department.

Mr. Westwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that public assistance becomes a very heavy burden upon the public assistance authorities, and will he make representations to the right authority with a view to providing adequate pensions for the old age pensioners?

Mr. Wedderburn: That is another question, but I am afraid I could not undertake to get the figures, which I am advised would entail too much clerical work.

Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Minister of Health in order to get the same information for us in England as he has now given for Scotland?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What proportion does that number of old age pensioners bear to the total number in Scotland?

Mr. Wedderburn: It is about 16 per cent.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons receiving public assistance relief in Glasgow and Edinburgh, including Leith, for the years ended December, 1937 and 1938, respectively?

Mr. Wedderburn: The number of persons, including dependants, in receipt of public assistance in Edinburgh, including Leith, at 15th December, 1937, was 14,334, and at 15th December, 1938, 14,317. The corresponding figures for Glasgow are 101,508 and 96,676.

Mr. Davidson: Are any steps being taken by the Scottish Office to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the serious state of Scottish affairs with regard to public assistance relief?

Mr. Wedderburn: That seems to be a more general question.

Mr. Davidson: Have any steps been taken by the Scottish Office to draw the Prime Minister's attention to this state of affairs?

Mr. Wedderburn: I think that the Prime Minister is well aware of the state of affairs.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of old age pensioners in the counties of Stirling and Clackmannan, respectively, who have been compelled to seek public assistance during the year 1938?

Mr. Wedderburn: Statistics in the precise form which the hon. Member asks are not available, but the numbers of old

age pensioners in receipt of public assistance in the counties of Stirling and Clackmannan at 15th November, 1938, the latest date for which figures are available were 837 and 247 respectively.

Mr. Westwood: Do these figures include the large burghs of Stirling and Falkirk?

Mr. Wedderburn: No, they are for the counties.

Mr. Davidson: Do they show an increase on the figures for the previous year?

Mr. Wedderburn: I was only asked the figures for 1938. I cannot say whether they show an increase on the previous year.

Mr. Davidson: Do you not know anything about your office?

POOR PERSONS (LEGAL ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, on what points of the report of the Poor Persons' Representation (Scotland) Committee is there a difference of opinion among the profession and local authorities; and what steps have been taken to reconcile their views?

Mr. Wedderburn: There is a difference of opinion among the profession as to the practicability of the main proposals of the Committee for the provision of legal assistance to poor persons and among the local authority associations as to the recommendation that local authorities in "large towns" should provide and remunerate a "public defensor." My right hon. Friend, in consultation with the Lord Advocate, has tried to secure a measure of agreement, but in present circumstances he can see no prospect of early legislation on the subject.

SIZE OF SCHOOL CLASSES.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of school classes in Glasgow with 50 or more pupils?

Mr. Wedderburn: On 13th January, 1939, there were in Glasgow 165 classes with 50 pupils, and 62 with over 50 pupils, on the roll.

Mr. Davidson: Have the Scottish Office any particular plans with regard to an early reduction of the number of classes with over 50 pupils?

Mr. Wedderburn: As the hon. Member knows, our code of regulations prescribes that the number of pupils in a class should not exceed 50, unless in exceptional circumstances. I think the most common reason in Glasgow for these classes of over 50 is the rapid transfer of the population from one part of the city to another. The number is only about one-half what it was last year.

Mr. Westwood: Does the figure referred to by the hon. Gentleman mean 50 on the roll or 50 in attendance?

Mr. Wedderburn: I said there were 165 classes with 50 pupils exactly, and 62 with over 50.

Mr. Westwood: I am asking whether that means 50 in attendance or 50 on the roll, because that makes an average difference of three to four in the size of classes?

Mr. Wedderburn: It is on the roll.

Mr. Charles Williams: Why is it that these Socialist authorities always lag so much in progress in anything like education?

Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the Socialist majority came into being the number of big classes has been reduced?

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (ECONOMIC CONDITIONS).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the bodies to be consulted regarding the economic life of the Scottish Highlands and Islands will include the crofters' unions?

Mr. Wedderburn: My right hon. Friend has already received a deputation from the Crofters and Smallholders Association representing parts of the counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty and he is at present considering a request to hear the views of crofters' unions of other parts of the counties and the Islands.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the resolutions passed and sent to him by the Conference of Crofters' Unions at Mallaig on 2nd February, regarding the policy required to meet the needs of the Scottish Highlands and Islands; and whether he intends to comply with the requests made to him?

Mr. Wedderburn: My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the resolution referred to by the hon. Member. In the meantime he is not in a position to add to the terms of the answer which he gave on Tuesday last to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) and the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. Gibson) on the subject of the report of the Highlands and Islands Committee.

MEALS IN SCHOOLS.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of children who are in receipt of free meals in the schools in the county of Clackmannan for the years 1937 and 1938, respectively?

Mr. Wedderburn: I am informed by the education authority that there were no children in receipt of free meals in the schools in the county of Clackmannan in the years ended 31st July, 1937, and 31st July, 1938.

HOUSING (ALLOA).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement regarding the housing situation in Alloa; and what proposals have been put forward by the Scottish Office and the local authority to deal with it?

Mr. Wedderburn: According to the latest information submitted by the town council, 308 new houses are required to replace unfit houses and to accommodate families now overcrowded. The town council have placed contracts for the building of 288 houses, of which 114 were under construction at the end of January.

HERRING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any proposals to make available for working people, including those who are unemployed, the produce of the herring-fishing industry, especially the Clyde fishing industry, particularly during periods of abundant supply; and what arrangements he has made, or has in contemplation, to create an effective home market for herring and an effective demand?

Mr. Wedderburn: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the Report


of the Herring Industry Board for the year 1937–38, which deals with the home market for herring and the measures taken to develop it. The recently reconstituted board are giving consideration to the possibility of increasing the markets for herring.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ASTHMA (MINERS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Asthma Research Council are taking active steps to investigate causes of asthma among coal miners; and will he supply figures as to the incidence of asthma among these workers?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I have been asked to reply. So far as I am aware, the Asthma Research Council is not making any special investigation with reference to coal miners. As regard the second part of the question, I regret that there are no official figures of the incidence of asthma among coal miners.

Mr. Adams: Is it the intention of the Department to make such an investigation among coal miners, because it is a very imperative investigation?

Mr. Cross: The hon. Member had better put that question down to my right hon. Friend. This question refers to the Asthma Research Council, which is an independent body.

ANGLO-GERMAN EXPORT AGREEMENT.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will inform the House of the terms of the Anglo-German coal export agreement arrived at by representatives of the British and German coal industries?

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can furnish details of the agreement recently concluded between Germany and British coalowners for the regulation of markets; and whether there is provision for an increase in British coal exports and any safeguards to prevent German coal entering markets outwith the scope of the agreement?

Mr. Cross: I cannot add anything to the statement which my right hon. Friend made in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins) on 31st January.

Mr. Bellenger: When will the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. and gallant Friend be in a position to give the House vital information about one of our biggest export industries?

Mr. Cross: If the hon. Member will study the reply given on 31st January, he will see that my right hon. and gallant Friend indicated that the alignment of points of view achieved by the coal industries of Germany and the United Kingdom was a preliminary to and should facilitate further negotiations for an international coal agreement between all the principal European coal producing countries. Pending the result of those negotiations nothing can be added to that reply.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. Gentleman give information as to the precise details of the agreement between British and German coalowners, irrespective of the further negotiations that are likely to ensue?

Mr. Cross: This agreement, as I understand it, is clearly a provisional arrangement, and it will depend entirely on further negotiations whether the conditions obtaining in it can be implemented. I understand that my right hon. and gallant Friend is not prepared to give any further information.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that no part of the agreement will become operative at present?

Mr. Cross: Yes, that is so.

Mr. Jenkins: In the negotiations which are now proceeding will there be a decision on quantities and prices? If so, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to give particulars as to quantities and prices at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Cross: That is not the question on the Paper.

BOYS (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary for Mines the estimated number of boys under 16 years of age employed in the coalmining industry for the 12 months ended the last convenient date?

Mr. Cross: The returns for 1938 are not yet completed, and the hon. Member will accordingly find the latest available information on pages 144 and 145 of the Secretary for Mines Annual Report for the year 1937.

Mr. Day: Is any legislation contemplated for the protection of these young persons?

Mr. Cross: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the approximate amount of light and heavy oils, respectively, produced from British coal during 1938; and how these amounts were divided between the various processes;
(2) the retained imports of refined motor spirit and heavy oils, respectively, in 1938, including quantities obtained from home refined crude?

Mr. Cross: I regret that the information asked for is not yet available.

Mr. Morgan: asked the Secretary for Mines the amounts of motor spirit and Diesel oil, respectively, produced from shale in the United Kingdom in 1938?

Mr. Cross: By courtesy of Scottish Oils, Limited, I am able to inform the hon. Member that during 1938 the company produced about 7,000,000 gallons of motor spirit and about 15,000,000 gallons of Diesel oil.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABRADOR COAST (NATIVE CONDITIONS).

Mr. Muff: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can report on the social and economic condition of the natives on the Labrador Coast; and whether his department is taking any steps to help the native fishermen to continue their occupation?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have been in communication with the Governor, who informs me that a section dealing with conditions among the Eskimos and Indians in Labrador will be incorporated in the Annual Report of the Commission of Government for 1938 which will be reaching me shortly. This section will include information as to the fisheries position. I will arrange for the report to be presented to Parliament as soon as it has been printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

NEW ZEALAND (IMPORT LICENCES).

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether

he will obtain any assurance from the New Zealand Government that under their new system of controlling imports they will not reduce the imports of Lancashire textiles below the average level of recent years?

Sir T. Inskip: The probable effect upon the United Kingdom export trade to New Zealand of the system of import licences which has recently been introduced in New Zealand is at present under examination by the Government here, and I am not at the moment in a position to make a statement.

JARROW STEEL WORKS.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that only about 50 men are employed on the preliminary work for the steelworks on the Palmers site in Jarrow; and whether, in view of the national emergency and the long delay that has taken place, he will make representations to the directors concerned with a view to hastening the construction of these works?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The New Jarrow Steel Company inform me that they are anxious to make progress as rapidly as possible, and that there will be no delay on their part.

Miss Wilkinson: While admitting that that rather takes away my breath, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that at the present rate of progress this steel yard will be about ready for the next slump but one?

Mr. Stanley: I am sorry that the hon. Lady nearly lost her breath—

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: For the first time for years.

Mr. Stanley: I understand that the steel for the erection of these buildings has been ordered.

Miss Wilkinson: We have had the Minister's promise since 1937.

SHIPPING AND SHIPBUILDING.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade, how many shipyards have now been closed through National Shipbuilders Security, Limited; what number of berths and representing what tonnage capacity; the capacity of existing yards, berths and tonnage; and whether he is satisfied that the existing capacity is adequate for the nation's needs in time of war?

Mr. Stanley: As regards the first part of the question, I understand that the berths purchased by National Shipbuilders Security, Limited, have a capacity of about 1,350,000 gross tons annually of merchant shipping and that there remains an annual capacity of about 2,000,000 gross tons in the existing yards, excluding yards specialising in naval work. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Miss Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it adequate in the present dangerous situation that we should have 2,000,000 tons less shipping, and 2,000 fewer ships? Has not the time arrived for an inquiry into the activities of National Shipbuilders Security Limited?

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Lady knows, the position with regard to shipbuilding is at present under review, but I think that a capacity for building 2,000,000 tons—leaving aside specialist yards—would be sufficient, and that the limiting factor is more a question of the amount of labour available.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the criticism by Lord Maclay, once the Minister of Shipping, of the closing down of British shipyards, and has he any comment to make?

Mr. Stanley: I have also read the comments of people who have been actively engaged in shipping very much more recently than Lord Maclay, who take a very different view from his.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the national subsidies provided for shipbuilding firms in Germany, Holland and Japan; and whether he has formed any estimate of the loss in unemployment benefit, Poor Law relief, national taxation, and local rating which this country has to find in indirect subsidy as a result of the loss of wages upon every £1,000,000 worth of shipping orders sent by British owners to foreign yards?

Mr. Stanley: I am not aware of any national subsidy for shipbuilding in Holland, but I understand that in the other two countries mentioned financial assistance of one type or another is provided by the Government for shipbuilding. The answer to the second part of

the question is in the negative. The position of the shipping and shipbuilding industries is under consideration by the Government at present.

Mr. Johnston: Regarding the second part of the question, to which the right hon. Gentleman said the answer was in the negative, is he not aware that the Ministry of Labour used to have all these figures in their possession, and could he not get them and be a little more communicative to the House on this matter of great public importance?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member must know that it is quite impossible to make any accurate estimate of this kind. The only estimate one can make is as to the amount of money which is being spent in building ships abroad and building them at home.

Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this country pays indirect subsidies in this matter, and that the Ministry of Labour have an estimate of the cost to this country in Poor Relief, unemployment benefit, and so on, and could he not get the figures and let us see them?

Mr. Stanley: I will give the hon. Member any figures I can, but he will realise that it is impossible for me to give an estimate respecting the rating burden, for example, without knowing in what yards the ships would be built if they were not built in foreign yards.

Miss Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the loss to this country is not only a loss represented by the actual payments made in dole and public assistance, but the loss of that very skill which the right hon. Gentleman himself was deploring a few moments ago?

Mr. Stanley: I quite realise that, but with all these imponderables which cannot be valued, I cannot think that it would be possible to make a calculation which would be of very great value.

Miss Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy with regard to shipping and merchant shipbuilding?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make on the proposals of the Joint Shipping Policy Committee of the Chamber of Shipping and


the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association for assisting the Mercantile Marine?

Mr. Stanley: I am not able to add yet to the reply I gave on 31st January to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward).

Miss Ward: In view of the importance of this statement, may I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the whole statement—not on an Opposition Vote of Censure upon the Government?

Mr. Stanley: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Miss Ward: I have addressed it several times to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Stanley: If the Leader of the House cannot answer the question, I cannot.

Mr. Johnston: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that during the period August to December, 1938, 22 British-owned vessels with a gross weight of 66,810 tons were sold to foreign shipbreakers for scrap-iron purposes; if he has any information to show how much of the scrap from these vessels goes directly or indirectly to Germany; and why this export is permitted during a period when scrap-iron has had to be imported by Britain from the United States of America?

Mr. Stanley: According to the records of the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen, the aggregate gross tonnage of British vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards which were sold to foreign owners for the purpose of being broken up for scrap during the period August to December, 1938, was 44,870 tons. Of these, two vessels with an aggregate gross tonnage of 416 tons were sold to Germany. So far as I am aware, there was no shortage of scrap-iron and steel in this country during the period in question. The imports from America were in pursuance of contracts made in the previous year.

Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from his records, or from information in the possession of the Overseas Trade Department, how many of those vessels which were not sent direct

to Germany were sent to countries adjacent to Germany to be scrapped and the scrap sold from there into Germany; and is it right in the national interest that we should be supplying raw material for German armaments?

Mr. Stanley: As I said, the only direct sale to Germany was an aggregate gross tonnage of 416 tons. I could certainly get the figures mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but we have no evidence that, when these vessels are sold to adjacent countries and scrapped, the scrap is in fact being passed on to Germany.

Sir Louis Smith: Would my right hon. Friend give this matter further consideration, seeing that it is hardly a sound business proposition to be exporting ships for other countries to break up when we have facilities for breaking them up here, and are importing from those countries at the same time?

Mr. Stanley: The whole question of the scrapping of ships must form part of the investigations which the Government are pursuing now into the question of shipping and shipbuilding.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Minister tell the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir L. Smith) not to foul his own nest?

TINPLATE INDUSTRY.

Mr. Price: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the tinplate works of Richard Thomas at Lydney have been closed for some weeks in connection with the rationalisation which is going on in the industry; and whether, in view of the large amount of unemployment which this is causing in this part of the Forest of Dean, he proposes to do anything in the matter?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that these works were closed in December because of the decline in the demand for tinplate. As regards the general situation in the industry, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 31st January to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).

Mr. Price: Is it not a fact that men have already gone from Lydney to South Wales, and does not that indicate that there is something more than trade depression involved in this matter?

Mr. Stanley: It is exactly that point which is involved in the answer to which I referred my hon. Friend. We are awaiting the report of a committee representing both employers and employed.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade particulars of the number of cinematograph exhibitors and renters who have been unable to comply with the quota provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and the number of cases in which exemption certificates have been applied for and granted?

Mr. Stanley: Ten renters were in default in the renters' quota year ended 31st March, 1938, but no exemption certificate was issued. Seventy-one exhibitors were in default for the year ended 30th September, 1938, including 42 in respect of part of the year only. The Cinematograph Films Council have not yet completed their consideration of these cases. I am afraid I cannot give the exact number of applications made for certificates. In general, all renters or exhibitors in default are given an opportunity of claiming a certificate, and practically all do so.

Mr. Day: Are the exemption certificates considered by the right hon. Gentleman or by the Advisory Council?

Mr. Stanley: They are considered in the first place by the Advisory Council.

Mr. Day: Is there an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress made by the British film industry under the present Act?

Mr. Stanley: Yes. As I have told the hon. and gallant Member, the object of the new Act was to produce good films in this country, and I think the record of the last 12 months shows that there has been great progress.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Was not the object to encourage the British film industry?

Mr. Stanley: It was to encourage the British film industry to make good films.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The British film industry, as the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, can make very good films.

BRITISH AND GERMAN INDUSTRIES (CONVERSATIONS).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any agreements arrived at in the negotiations now proceeding between the Federation of British Industries and the Reichsgruppe-Industrie are to be embodied in the form of cartels; and whether such undertakings will be dependent on antecedent approval by this House?

Mr. Stanley: I am not in a position to forecast the contents of any agreements that may be concluded as the result of the projected negotiations between certain British industries and their German competitors. They will, no doubt, vary according to the circumstances of the particular industries. I cannot say in advance whether any of these agreements will be such as to require Parliamentary approval.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: Will these negotiations be conducted by representatives of the Federation of British Industries as such, or by representatives of each industry and their opposite German numbers? Further, may I ask whether in any agreements that may be reached the political considerations of such agreements will be considered before they come into effect?

Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is, I think, that there will be first of all a general discussion between representatives of the Federation of British Industries, and the Reichsgruppe, and thereafter discussions between individual industries. With regard to the second part of the question, I am certain that representatives of the Federation of British Industries will have the national as well as the sectional interests in view.

MANCHURIA.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement concerning the conditions of British trade with Manchuria; and whether any plans are being discussed to counteract the difficulties in this connection arising from the Japanese control of foreign exchange?

Mr. Stanley: United Kingdom exports to Manchuria are undoubtedly hampered by the exchange-control system in force in that territory, for the purposes of which transactions with Japan are not treated as foreign. These exports, which are of relatively small value, have followed a fluctuating course; but in general have tended to decline in recent years. Other British interests, such as oil, shipping and insurance have also been adversely affected. In reply to the second part of the question, I can assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government are watching the whole position closely.

GERMAN MOTOR VEHICLES (IMPORTS).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and value of German motor vehicles imported into this country during 1938?

Mr. Stanley: During the year 1938, total imports into the United Kingdom of new private motor cars consigned from Germany numbered 3,367, the declared value being £327,000. Of these, 3,183, valued at £286,000, were imported during the first four months of the year. The number of new commercial vehicles imported from Germany during 1938 was 137, valued at £17,000.

Mr. Tomlinson: How many of those motor cars were bought by members of the working class?

Mr. Kennedy: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that plans are being prepared for an intensified output of cheap German motor cars for export; that the production of the cars will be heavily subsidised; that negotiations are now proceeding between motor interests in this country and the officials of the Government factory in Brunswick concerning a supply to this country of the subsidised car; and whether any action is to be taken by prohibition or otherwise to protect the interests of British producers against a form of competition likely to lower the output of British cars and the standard of life of British workers?

Mr. Hepworth: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the proposal to increase the sales of cheap German motor cars in this country; whether the British

motor industry has yet taken any advantage of the additional facilities with regard to production placed at their disposal in the Finance Act, 1938; and whether the British motor industry will be represented in the forthcoming trade talks between British and German industries as a whole?

Mr. Stanley: My attention has been drawn to a newspaper report of proposals for the export of cheap German motor cars to this country in 1941, but I am not in a position to confirm it. It is open to the motor manufacturing interests in this country to apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for further protection, but up to the present the committee have not given notice of any such application. I am not yet in a position to say which particular British and German industries will be represented in the forthcoming discussions.

Mr. Cartland: Is it not a fact that the motor industry could not apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee until after the imports take place, and is not this a form of competition that ought to be met before it becomes serious?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend's question is a little premature in view of the fact that the cars have not yet been produced, and I understand that at the very earliest they cannot be exported for two years.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH VESSEL (BRITISH FLAG).

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information as to the reasons why the French vessel "La Corse" is permitted to carry on a trade with Government Spain under the British flag; whether he can state the nature of her cargo, and the ports from which she sails?

Mr. Stanley: The statement in the first part of the question, as to the use of the British flag by this French vessel, is not confirmed by official information. I am not in a position to answer questions about the cargo and movements of foreign vessels, but I may point out that, in trade with Spain, this ship would be subject, under the Spanish Frontiers Observation Scheme, to the obligation of carrying observing officers of the Non-Intervention Board with powers of supervision over the cargo.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Can we take it that she was not flying the British flag?

Mr. Stanley: Inquiries have been made, and I have no evidence of the truth of that allegation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the changed conditions of the defence programme, he will consider the desirability of bringing before the Committee of Imperial Defence for reconsideration the question of the Channel tunnel?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 2nd February to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans).

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this matter was last brought before the Committee of Imperial Defence?

The Prime Minister: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH PRESIDENT (RECEPTION, WESTMINSTER HALL).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether, during the forthcoming visit of the President of the French Republic, he will make arrangements for the President to be received in Westminster Hall by both Houses of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the President would be glad to have an opportunity to visit the Houses of Parliament in the course of his forthcoming State visit, and arrangements are being made acorrdingly. It was thought that Members of both Houses would wish to extend a special welcome to the President and Mme. Lebrun on this occasion and it has, therefore, been arranged that they should be received in Westminster Hall at 11 a.m. on 23rd March. It will be open to Members of both Houses to be present, and those who signify their intention to attend will be invited to bring a lady with them.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the great satisfaction that this

ceremony in Westminster Hall will afford in this country as well as in France, not only as showing honour to the President but as a demonstration of real solidarity between the two Western democracies at the present juncture in world affairs?

Miss Horsbrugh: May I ask whether lady Members of this House may bring a man?

The Prime Minister: Naturally there will be reciprocity.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR RISKS (COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE).

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether consideration of the question of compensation for war risks has hitherto been confined to the permanent officials of the Board of Trade and of the Treasury; and whether he will consider the advisability of submitting the question to a committee of experts to be drawn from the banking, insurance, building societies, property-owning and building-trades employers and operatives interests which are closely affected by the Government's proposals.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): In the statement which I made on 31st January I indicated that the Government had had the advantage of consultation with the insurance interests, and we gave full consideration to the interests of others directly affected by this question. In the working out of the details of our proposals we shall endeavour to keep in close touch with those primarily concerned in its operation, but full responsibility for the proposals must remain with the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to bring under some form of Government supervision the manufacturers of aeroplanes and machine guns, to ensure that the profits on capital shall not exceed a reasonable return?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave on 28th July, 1938, to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend really satisfied that adequate and sufficient safeguards are at present in operation to check the unnecessarily high profits which are being made?

Sir J. Simon: If my hon. Friend will look at the answer to which I referred, he will see that the matter is there dealt with.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Why is it that aircraft firms are, in fact, making such enormous profits?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES' LOANS (REPAYMENT PREMIUMS).

Mr. De Chair: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a number of small local authorities who have obtained loans from the Public Works Loan Board at a high rate of interest are not allowed by the board to pay off the principal when they have an opportunity of raising the money elsewhere at a lower current rate of interest; that the parish council of Outwell, Norfolk, who contracted a loan for £596 6s. 4d. at 6¾ per cent. are now expected to pay a premium of £297 15s. 10d. in order to be allowed to pay off the principal; and, in view of the fact that where public loans are concerned His Majesty's Government themselves have never hesitated to convert to a lower rate of interest when they were able to do so, will he reconsider the case of those small local authorities with a view to waiving the payment of premiums on repayment?

Sir J. Simon: Loans made by the Public Works Loan Board to local authorities are long-term loans and are made out of the Local Loans Fund, the money required for the loans being raised by the issue of Local Loan Stock. That stock is redeemable only at par and, when issued at a discount, cannot be so redeemed except at a loss to the fund and ultimately to the taxpayer. If a local authority desires to repay a loan before the end of the period for which it agreed to borrow, such repayment can only be admitted if the authority repays such amount as will be sufficient in effect to cancel the liability of the fund in respect of the stock issued to raise the amount of the loan. In present circumstances that requires the payment of a premium which could not be waived without exposing the fund to

a heavy capital loss. With reference to the last part of the question, no loans issued by the Government have ever been converted except in strict accordance with the terms of the prospectus on which they were issued.

Mr. De Chair: While the actuarial position is obviously correct, is not my right hon. Friend aware that it weighs very heavily upon small local authorities who incurred these loans at a time of greater economic uncertainty, and who would be grateful for some kind of aid from the State to relieve them of that responsibility?

Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend will see that the situation is as I have stated it and I do not think, in the circumstances, it can be expected that loans made by the Public Works Loans Board to local authorities should be dealt with otherwise than on the terms provided.

Mr. Thorne: What amount of interest have the Public Works Loans Board to pay for the money they borrow, and what do they get when they lend?

Sir J. Simon: As the hon. Member will be aware, the Public Works Loans Board does not aim at a profit, but is the instrument by which local authorities are helped to borrow money.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEATH DUTIES.

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the present system of assessing Death Duties is such that in many cases it causes grave hardships; and, in order to secure a similar financial return to the Exchequer from Death Duties, will he consider the advisability of reforming the method of calculation and adopt the principle of taxing by graduation on the capital the surviving beneficiary received, rather than the aggregated amount the deceased left?

Sir J. Simon: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion; but he will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT.

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the increased difficulties of


sugar growers in the British West Indies as a result of the low world price for sugar, the forced restriction of their output imposed by the International Sugar Agreement, and the increased rates of wages which have recently been instituted; and whether he will reconsider the desirability of increasing the number of special preference certificates available for British colonial sugar producers until such time as the price of sugar rises to a more reasonable level?

Sir J. Simon: I am aware of the position of sugar growers in the British West Indies, but, as regards the suggestion made in the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) on 21st November last.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the cost to the Monmouthshire County Council in supplementing old age and contributory pensions, is at present at the rate of £100,000 per annum, which is equivalent to a rate of more than 2s. in the £; and whether, having regard to the prolonged trade depression throughout the country, the Government will introduce legislation to increase the rate of pensions to a standard necessary to enable the pensioners to live without having recourse to public assistance?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot confirm the statement in the first part of this question. As regards the latter part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 2nd of this month to a question by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams).

Mr. Jenkins: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that in this case the liability of the local authority amounts to a sum equivalent to the product of a 2s. rate, and that there are many local authorities who are bearing a very heavy financial burden in respect of the payment of these pensions; and will he take steps immediately to transfer that burden from the local authorities to the State funds?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think that the supplementary question raises any new

point which was not in the original question.

Mr. Thorne: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to increase his reputation will he please be good enough to make provision for this matter in the next Budget.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern expressed on his own side of the House at the growing burden of rates in this country? Could not that burden be lessened by making it a national obligation, paid out of Government funds?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WINE (SWEETS).

Mr. Annesley Somerville: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the recent case in the Thames Police Court where a person, who manufactured and sold, by retail, British wine, legally known as sweets and regulated as such, was found to be sending out such sweets from his premises without making the requisite entry in his books; whether the small duty payable on such wines depends on such entries; and whether he is satisfied that other regulations affecting such sweets were complied with in this case?

Sir J. Simon: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; with regard to the second part, the entries which a sweets maker is required to make in his entry book are the basis of the charge to duty; with regard to the third part, the failure to make proper entries was not the only offence in respect of which proceedings were taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHEAP WINE.

Mr. A. Somerville: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a recent report of a select committee of the Northern Ireland Parliament emphasises the danger involved in the growing habit of drinking cheap wine; and what action he proposes to take in a matter which concerns Great Britain as a whole no less than Northern Ireland?

Sir J. Simon: My attention has been drawn to the report in question, but I am unable to make any statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH INVESTMENTS (EMPIRE AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Mr. De Chair: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) how much capital has been invested by British investors in the Colonial Empire since the war; and what has been the average yield of investments in this field during the period;
(2) whether he can give an estimate of how much British capital has been invested in British and foreign countries, respectively, since the War; how much capital in either case has been lost; and to what extent has there been default in the payment of interest or dividends in the respective fields of investment?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I fear that no statistics are available which would enable me to answer these questions. I would, however, refer him to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Wood Green Division of Middlesex (Mr. Baxter) on 5th March, 1936, of which I am sending him a copy, and also to the annual reports published by the Council of Foreign Bondholders.

Mr. De Chair: May I ask my right hon. Friend how His Majesty's Government expect to develop the Colonial Empire if they cannot obtain these facts?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPINSTERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the Government's attitude towards granting the pension to spinsters at an earlier age?

Captain Wallace: This question is at present under consideration by a committee, whose report is expected shortly. In the meantime I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHIEF DIVISIONAL FOOD OFFICER, LONDON.

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of the retaining fee paid to Sir Reginald Ford; the duties for which he is being retained; and the probable period of his residence in Brussels?

Mr. Stanley: The retaining fee is 250 guineas per annum. Sir Reginald Ford,

Chief Divisional Food Officer for London and the Home Counties, is being retained for duties connected with the special problem of maintaining food supplies in the Greater London area in the event of war. This post is in addition to the three divisional food officers in that area. As regards the last part of the question, I am unable to add to the information which I gave in reply to the hon. Member's question on 7th February.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Reginald Ford stated that his only reason for living in Brussels is that he likes it; and is that a sufficiently good reason in the circumstances?

Mr. Petherick: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the 250 guineas a year includes or excludes travelling expenses to and from Brussels?

Mr. Stanley: I am afraid I cannot. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put the question down.

Sir Percy Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the bad impression that is created by the absence of this officer at a time when people are thinking a great deal about this question and are working out schemes; and could not the right hon. Gentleman persuade him to take up residence here, or appoint some other officer who lives here?

Mr. Stanley: I think that any bad impression is entirely due to misapprehension as to this gentleman's qualifications and duties. I am hoping that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) will be able to raise this question on the Adjournment to-night, when I shall be only too glad to give full particulars.

Mr. Mender: Is it open to other officers connected with the Defence Services also to live abroad if they so desire?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member must realise that this is not a question of a whole-time officer doing daily routine work.

Mr. Pritt: Will the people who assist us in the next war be in Berlin?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (DEFENSIVE MEASURES).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what proportion of the officers and seamen,


respectively, in our merchant navy have attended courses in the use of defensive weapons on their ships; and in what length of time it is expected that all such officers and seamen will be fully qualified by having passed through Parts I and II of these defence courses?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): Courses for seamen in defensive weapons have not yet begun, but will do so very shortly. As regards the Merchant Navy Defence Course Part I as applied to officers of the deck branch, who will handle the defensive armaments, 6,436 have received training, or approximately 43 per cent. Part II is open to deck officers other than masters in command who have completed Part I, and 1,121 officers have attended the course. Owing to the constant flow of officers entering and leaving the Merchant Navy, it is impracticable to forecast when all will have completed both parts of the course.

Mr. Adams: When is it expected that the courses for seamen will be held?

Colonel Llewellin: Very shortly.

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the training of British seamen in the use of defensive weapons, will any of these officers be serving in vessels in which Chinese and lascar labour is exclusively employed?

Colonel Llewellin: That, of course, is quite a separate question. The hon. Gentleman had better put it down.

Mr. Shinwell: Cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what are the Admiralty's intentions as regards those vessels where Chinese and lascars are almost exclusively employed?

Colonel Llewellin: This question deals entirely with those who are going through these courses, and that is the question to which I have replied. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for further information, I think he had better put a question down.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of merchant ships which have had their decks stiffened to enable them to mount guns up to 6-inch calibre; and whether reserves of guns and equipment, now held in readiness for issue to the merchant navy in case of emergency, are fully adequate to equip every ship requiring these?

Colonel Llewellin: It would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Sir R. Rankin) on 7th December last. Satisfactory progress with the provision of anti-aircraft equipments has been made since that date.

Mr. Adams: Does not the Minister consider that it is rather extravagant to say that it is not in the public interest to disclose information which will be available to everybody?

Colonel Llewellin: That is just what it is not.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it intended to equip any merchant ships with anti-aircraft guns; and, if so, are the necessary guns in reserve?

Colonel Llewellin: The second part of my answer refers to that point. I said that satisfactory progress is being made with anti-aircraft guns. With regard to anti-submarine weapons, we already have a completely adequate supply.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that the men employed in these vessels have the information made available to them, and why should it be concealed from us?

Colonel Llewellin: It is a question of the number which we have so far strengthened. With regard to a particular ship the men in it may well know whether it has been strengthened or not, but the general number is only known to the Admiralty, and it is right that that should be so.

Mr. David Adams: Is it intended to stiffen the decks of the whole of the mercantile marine up to a certain tonnage?

Colonel Llewellin: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is serious concern in Durham County owing to the large increase in the number of persons unemployed in the


county generally; and what measures he is prepared to adopt to meet the situation?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I regret that there has been a further increase in the number of unemployed in this area. The general problem of unemployment is receiving the close attention of His Majesty's Government, but, as I pointed out in my reply to the hon. Member on 8th December last, employment in Durham County is very largely governed by the position of the coal trade.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer I received in December really meant nothing as far as the solution of the problem is concerned? Can he say whether or not the Government have a plan to meet the situation? Up to now they have done practically nothing.

Mr. Brown: I cannot agree with that. It would take me a long time to state all that has been done, and perhaps the House will accord me that time on Thursday.

BENEFIT AND ALLOWANCES (OLD AGE PENSIONERS).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that whilst unemployment benefit or allowance ceases on a person reaching the qualifying age for old age pension, the person is not entitled to the old age pension until the first Thursday following his birthday; and whether any action can be taken to remove this anomaly?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him yesterday by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in answer to a similar question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BACON INDUSTRY.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the practice of selling imported frozen pig-meat as British bacon after curing in this country; and whether steps will be taken to ensure that only pigs which are bred, fed, and cured here shall be retailed as British bacon?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. Substantial quantities of frozen pork, imported largely from the Dominions, are cured in this country and sold as "home-cured," but my right hon. Friend is not aware that it is the practice to sell this bacon as "British." If my right hon. Friend's information is correct, the second part of my hon. Friend's question does not arise, but, if he will supply my right hon. Friend with any evidence of possible offences against the Merchandise Marks Acts or Orders in this connection, he will be glad to have inquiries made.

Sir P. Hurd: Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to be kind enough to send an inspector to Smithfield? Does he realise how far this deceptive practice has gone, and how it misleads the housewife and injures the British bacon industry?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let the Minister have some evidence first.

Sir P. Hurd: Will he send an inspector to Smithfield?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend is not aware of, and has no evidence of, the practice in question.

Sir P. Hurd: Will he obtain the evidence by sending an inspector to Smithfield?

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it not the case that, if the Government refuse to recognise that any initiative lies with them to take any action, that will encourage evasion of the law?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I cannot accept that. If my hon. Friend has some information that he can place at the disposal of my right hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend will be very glad to go into it.

Sir P. Hurd: The information is obtainable at Smithfield.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASTARDY SUMMONSES.

Sir R. Blair: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of the extension of the operation of the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act, 1881, to Eire so as to cover the cases where summonses are granted in England under the


provisions of the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act and Affiliation Orders Act, 1914, upon the application of a single woman to affiliate her child born in this country and enable such a summons to be served upon the alleged father resident in Eire?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The facilities which my hon. Friend desires could not be provided merely by an extension of the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act, 1881. Special legislation would be necesary, both in England and in Eire. Schemes for enabling the mother of an illegitimate child to obtain an affiliation order against a father who has left the country deserve sympathetic consideration. Such schemes involve practical questions of considerable difficulty, but the matter has been noted for consideration when an opportunity occurs.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Government is yet in a position to consider an extension of self-government to the people of Newfoundland?

Sir T. Inskip: It would be premature to consider any such change at present. It is, however, the aim of the Commission of Government to keep in close touch with local opinion both in day to day administration and on major questions of policy, and the best methods for securing this are constantly under review.

Mr. Leach: Why does the right hon. Gentleman consider it premature?

Sir T. Inskip: For reasons, with which the House is familiar, the island is not yet in a position to be self-supporting.

Mr. Maxton: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman's arrival at the Dominions Office is not to mean any difference in policy?

Sir T. Inskip: I hope it will mean a difference in conditions there.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. Pickthorn: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to publish as a White Paper the exchange of letters

known as the McMahon-Hussein correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sheriff Hussein of Mecca in the year 1915?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. A White Paper containing the correspondence is being prepared and will be issued as soon as possible. Meanwhile, for the convenience of business, copies of the letters are being placed at the disposal of the delegates to the Palestine Conference, whose proceedings are confidential.

Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this question has been admitted under the Rules as to urgent questions of public importance?

Mr. Speaker: I have seen the question, and I have admitted it.

Mr. Garro Jones: Was that question admitted by you, Sir, to be asked at the end of Questions to-day?

Mr. Speaker: I allowed it because it is a matter of public importance.

Mr. Cocks: Why is it that when successive British Governments have always refused to publish this correspondence on the grounds of national interest, it is in the national interest that it should be published now?

The Prime Minister: I cannot go into the reasons why successive Governments have not thought it right to publish it before, but, in regard to the last part of the question, the publication was asked for by the Arab delegates, and it was thought desirable that it should be published in answer to their request. As they were going to have that information, it was thought desirable that the House should have it also.

Mr. De Chair: Will the Prime Minister have a map included in the White Paper showing the areas involved in the correspondence?

The Prime Minister: I will consult my right hon. Friend about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the important issues involved, any decision, conditional or otherwise, to recognise the Spanish insurgent authorities as the de facto or de jure Government of


Spain will be communicated to this House before any action is taken thereon, with a view to an early Debate?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government will naturally communicate to the House at the earliest possible moment any decision at which they may arrive. I cannot give an assurance that it will be possible for them to delay taking any action which may seem to them proper, but it is always within the power of the House to express their opinion on the policy of His Majesty's Government, and, should the Government reach any new decision, I shall naturally be ready to afford facilities for a Debate.

Mr. Bellenger: In the event of any recognition being given to the Franco Government, will it be unconditional or on certain terms?

The Prime Minister: That is a hypothetical question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister for what purpose he is moving the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?

The Prime Minister: It is desired to take the Report and Third Reading of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Bill, the Committee stage of the Bacon Industry (Amendment) [Money] Resolution, and the Third Reading of the Czecho-Slovakia (Financial Assistance) Bill. It is not proposed to ask the House to sit unduly late.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 98.

CLAUSE 12.—(Stock exchanges and associations of dealers in securities.)

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Leach: I beg to move, in page 15, line 30, at the end, to insert:
Provided that any such order shall not be made in respect of any such stock exchange or association unless membership thereof is granted or refused to applicants on terms and conditions approved by the Board of Trade.
This Clause gives power to the Board of Trade to grant recognition to stock exchanges. The President of the Board of Trade is to be congratulated on taking legal notice of stock exchanges; that is a step forward. But nowhere in this Bill is there anything to prevent stock exchanges from continuing to be, what they are now, private unregulated bodies. A stock exchange can refuse any application for membership and give no reasons. It can, and does from time to time, act unreasonably. I am told of one stock exchange—I can give the name of the town to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes—where the membership consists of so many questionable characters that reputable brokers decline to apply for membership. The London Stock Exchange, which I suppose is the most reputable in the country, has a clause debarring women from membership. One result of my Amendment would be to take away from the London Stock Exchange and other stock exchanges the power to blackball applicants for membership because they happen to be women. At present any stock exchange can refuse membership on any grounds it pleases, or on no grounds at all. Such arrogant power is bad enough at present, but when this Bill passes into law it will be much worse. The Bill raises the status of stock exchanges. They are given Government recognition for the first time. Any stockbroker carrying on business in a town where there is such a recognised stock exchange, of which he or she is not a member, might as well shut up shop.
I ask the President to bear in mind that he issued in April, 1937, a warning to investors, a very proper warning. That

gave investors to understand that only by their taking the advice of and operating through members of stock exchanges could share-pushing frauds be brought to an end. In effect, the Board of Trade informed the public at large that outside brokers are so frequently questionable characters that they had better be left alone. In view of that advice, which probably was quite sound in the broad sense, why is the President taking no steps whatever to ensure in this Bill that stock exchanges do consist of reputable persons, and that membership is open to all qualified and reputable applicants? There is a case in my own city of a competent and qualified broker against whom no objection of any kind has ever been alleged except that she is a woman, yet she has, for that objection, been refused membership of the Bradford Stock Exchange. This insuperable barrier threatened her livelihood, and, in order to overcome it, she took in as partner a man. The male partner thereupon applied for membership of the Bradford Stock Exchange, but, owing to the circumstances of the case, the woman being head of the firm, he too was refused membership. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent that process going on indefinitely. There is perfect freedom in the hands of all stock exchanges to say "Yes" or "No" to all applicants for membership. The House, I hope, will see that if this Bill passes without incorporating this Amendment, these people are facing very early ruin.
It may be urged that the individual licensing of stockbrokers provided in this Bill will give them status enough, but I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade will not make any such claims. He has told the investor to deal only with members of a stock exchange. When this Bill passes, investors themselves will look more askance than ever they did before at outside brokers. They will note that the Government have granted the hallmark of recognition to the stock exchange. They will be sure that any practising broker who remains outside must be eccentric and probably a "wrong 'un." They will note that the Government have licensed him to deal with stocks and shares, but that his competent peers, who know much more about him than the Board of Trade can know, have declined to endorse it.
The law in regard to private corporations, trade unions and other associations has of late years been very considerably tightened up. A trade union seeking to refuse membership to a properly qualified applicant might very conceivably be indicted for conspiracy to deprive a person of his livelihood. I do not know of any "association of dealers" or "body of persons"—these are quotations from Clause 12 as to what the stock exchanges are to consist of—recognised in law who have full and perfectly unfettered freedom to deal with the membership by application exactly as they please. Whether it be the case of the doctors or the lawyers or trade unions, any unreasonable refusal of membership is conspiracy, and is actionable. I ask the right hon. Gentle-whether he knows of any legally recognised body of persons in this country possessing unlimited powers in the matter of membership rights I am glad to note, in putting this question, that he has on his side the competent Law Officers of the Crown, who will put me right on this if I happen to be wrong. If I happen to be right and the law is in that way, and there is not in existence in this country any association of people who have a legal status as an association and possess at the same time absolute freedom to do as they please about membership, is he going to create such a body to-day? I ask him not to do this thing, but to accept the Amendment which I am moving, I hope that he will see that it is a reasonable one.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend seems to have covered the ground in favour of the Amendment so admirably and completely that there is really little that I desire to add. It is, however, clear that under this Bill we are conferring upon stock exchanges a power which they have not previously had. It is true that, if a man says, "I am licensed by the Board of Trade to deal in stocks and shares and securities," such a declaration carries with it to a certain extent the stamp of respectability, but nothing like the stamp of respectability that is borne by a man who is able to say, "My competitor, Mr. X, has been licensed by the Board of Trade as a person fit to deal in securities, but I am a much more respectable person than he is because the Legislature have

decided that I do not need a licence at all." He is therefore in a better position. He is in a position that is better than it was before, and he has an advantage over other competitors in the same field. No doubt such an association as a stock exchange might, if its rules are subject to no supervision and if they require no approval from the Board of Trade, easily make themselves a close corporation so as to restrict the amount of competition in the business.
It would be wrong in principle for the Legislature to confer rights on associations of persons to the detriment of their competitors without taking to themselves the power to see that they do not become close corporations, using the privileges which the legislature has conferred upon them in order to obtain a complete and conclusive advantage all through. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) quite rightly said, there are other bodies which have the right to determine who shall or shall not practise in certain professions. There are the General Medical Council, the Law Society and the various Inns of Court. What may be true of the last of these I am not quite sure, but certainly in the profession of solicitor the Law Society is bound to exercise its powers in accordance with legislation and the provisions laid down in the same legislation that gives it the exclusive power. If they are to be close corporations they should not be so constituted as to use their powers unfairly or to be the means of deriving some advantage to themselves. If it is clear, as I submit it must be, that under this Bill the stock exchanges are given powers greater than the powers of those trading against them in the same field, it is right that the Board of Trade should take powers to see that these rights are not selfishly or narrowly exercised.

6.52 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) for having brought forward this Amendment. It is a point of very great substance that a stock exchange has rights which it exercises in a manner such as no other corporation or body in these days would exercise. It is true that if this Amendment were accepted it would rest in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade as to what rules and regulations he would lay down in admitting persons to the stock exchange,


but as he is known for his aggressive spirit one cannot doubt that we should have the present disabilities removed. It is high time that women had the power of becoming members of a stock exchange, and I believe that it would be to the benefit of the whole country were they so to do. On every occasion when we have a crisis the first thing we hear is that there is a panic on the stock exchanges, and that the spirit in the country is one of calm. Therefore, the country being mainly composed of women, they would have a very beneficial influence if they were admitted to the stock exchanges. Then we might see less panic and a greater spirit of calm. I beg to support the Amendment.

6.54 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I think that the argument was put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) in such a way that every hon. Member in this House must almost agree with it, and many may agree with it entirely. If we had not the legislation that is now before us and if there was no Government interference, control or assistance, I could quite see that the Stock Exchange would have the right to regulate its own affairs. But it has been pointed out that we are getting to the stage when the Board of Trade has definite control and is helping the interests of one set of persons trading against the interests of others. I feel that once the Government take any share in the control of any business of this sort these barriers must go. Private people can keep their barriers. That does not matter in the very least. A great many businesses which are properly run probably may, in some cases, exclude women as members of those businesses—that is entirely their own account—but when it comes to a scheme such as this, where there is Government control no close corporation should be set up with rules giving the right to exclude people, unless they are not able to do the work. The time has gone when they should have the power to exclude someone because of sex, and neither this nor any Government to-day can stand for such exclusion.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Cross: The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) based a part of his argument upon some advice which was given by my right hon. Friend

before this Bill was drafted, to the effect that people would be well advised to deal with stockbrokers.

Mr. Leach: Stock exchanges.

Mr. Cross: I would point out to the hon. Member that the argument in that connection will fail with the passage of this Bill. That advice was previous to this Bill, and when this Bill is passed it will become an anachronism, because after that there will be a number of additional classes of persons, whom my right hon. Friend, I am sure, will be willing to name with stockbrokers in any further advice he may be called upon to give. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment showed that he appreciated fully that it would be under this Bill obligatory on the Board of Trade to investigate and maybe to approve the rules of the stock exchanges and of associations of dealers, but he did not, apparently, appreciate that the concern of the Board of Trade in so doing would be to have regard to all factors which are connected with the prevention of fraud, which is the main purpose of the Bill. The Amendment is not concerned, and the hon. Member did not claim that it was, with the prevention of fraud, but it requires the Board of Trade to have regard to a number of matters which are not connected with any suggestion of fraud whatever. I suggest to the hon. Member, therefore, that his Amendment really lies outside the main purpose of the Bill, which is to prevent fraud.

Mr. Leach: Why is the right hon. Gentleman recognising the stock exchanges at all?

Mr. Cross: We propose to recognise stock exchanges because we believe that certain stock exchanges, if not all of them, are bodies which, upon investigation, we shall find are of such a responsible character that they can be entrusted with the task of preventing fraud among their members. The concern of the Board of Trade consequently is to examine the rules and their enforcement from the point of view of whether the stock exchanges would be fitting objects for recognition. It follows that the Board of Trade in its examination must be concerned with the question of whether the rules embody a suitable and adequate code of discipline for their members, and, more important still, whether the code of discipline is actually enforced.
They must be satisfied, moreover, that the governing body would be exercising every proper care as to the admission only of people of good character and the exclusion of people of doubtful reputation. These and all similar matters fall to be considered by the Board of Trade when considering whether a particular stock exchange can or cannot be recognised. Questions as to the class or the sex of the persons are wholly irrelevant to the question of preventing fraud. In that connection the hon. Member did not recognise that the ladies that he has in mind would, at all events, be eligible for joining an association of outside dealers. The sex of the member is surely irrelevant. We are not debating the suggestion that men are more honest than women, or women than men. That is beside the point. But if by the Bill stock exchanges are to be authorised, by their own methods, to prevent fraud among their members, it would be absurd not to leave to them the minor task of determining what types or classes of persons should be eligible for membership.
I would go a little further and oppose the Amendment on principle, on the very ground that the hon. Member mentioned when he started his speech. These are private institutions. They are, as he said, like a private club and, like a private club, they should be allowed to continue without interference with their liberty, provided they are properly conducted. This is a grievance which existed long before the Bill was in draft. I well understand the hon. Member and the hon. Lady seeking an opportunity of giving it an airing. That is a thing which we all do when we get the opportunity. I hope they will recognise that the Amendment is not necessary to the prevention of fraud, which is the main purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. I thought this possibly might have been raised by one of the ladies who spoke. A year or two ago the House passed a sex disqualification removal Act, which was intended to provide that no citizen should be debarred from holding public offices or enjoying privileges by reason only of her sex. Apparently the Bill will confer exclusive privileges upon bodies which have in their constitution Clauses

that are in conflict with the principle of that Act, and, if that is so, I submit that a point of order arises, unless the Act is to be, for the purposes of this Act, explicitly repealed.

Mr. Speaker: I have not had any views of that kind in mind. I had my doubts whether it was within the scope of the Bill. I thought the hon. Member had an idea that the presence of women on the stock exchanges or associations would be likely to prevent fraud, which, after all, is the object of the Bill.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: It would be rather unfortunate if this Amendment were considered solely as a sex Amendment. My hon. Friend has said that the Bradford and London Stock Exchanges have debarred women from membership, and under the Bill stock exchanges are given what they have never had before—State recognition. But there are other instances where stock exchange corporations have used their powers arbitrarily. Surely there is nothing unreasonable, on an Amendment which does not say anything specific about sex discrimination, in asking the President of the Board of Trade to take powers, when he is licensing stock exchanges, or giving them authorisation to deal in securities, to say to them, "You shall be recognised only if you conform to certain public standards of equity which Parliament and the general public expect." I am not suggesting at all that any particular action should compel his acceptance of a stock exchange—that would be unreasonable and foolish—but if stock exchanges, as now constituted, are becoming close corporations, such as the old municipal boroughs were prior to the Municipal Corporations Act, I am certain that this House would wish to take advantage of a very convenient and useful opportunity to enable the President of the Board of Trade to put these corporations a little bit in their place. I hope my hon. Friends who have brought the Amendment forward will persist with it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 104: Noes, 180.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Dodd, J. S.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Albery, Sir Irving
Doland, G. F.
Higgs, W. F.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Dorman-Smith. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Holmes, J. S.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Drewe, C.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Berelay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Duggan, H. J.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dunglass, Lord
Hume, Sir G. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Eastwood, J. F.
Hunloke, H. P.


Blair, Sir R.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hunter, T.


Boulton, W. W.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Emery, J. F.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Fleming, E. L.
Joel, D. J. B.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Foot, D. M.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Keeling, E. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Furness, S. N.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Bullock, Capt. M.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Burton, Col. H. W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Butcher, H. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Gol. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Kimball, L


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Cary, R. A.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Goldie, N. B.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Leigh, Sir J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Channon, H.
Granville, E. L.
Liddall, W. S.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Gretton Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Lindsay, K. M.


Christie, J. A.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Lipson, D. L.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Lloyd, G. W.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Grimston, R. V.
Looker-Lampsan, Comdr. O. S.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Loftus. P. C.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hambro, A. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hammersley, S. S.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hannah, I. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cox, Trevor
Harbord, A.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Cross, R. H.
Harris, Sir P. A.
McKie, J. H.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Harvey, Sir G.
Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J. R. J.


Davidson, Viscountess
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Magnay, T.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Balton)
Mander, G. le M.


De Chair, S. S.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


De la Bère, R.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Markham, S. F.


Denville, Alfred
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Marsden, Commander A.




Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Medlicott, F.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Sutcliffe, H.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Tate, Mavis C.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Salmon, Sir I.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Salt, E. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd, S.)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Touche, G. C.


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Train, Sir J.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Sandys, E. D.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Scott, Lord William
Turton, R. H.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Seely, Sir H. M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Peake, O.
Selley, H. R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Evan


Perkins, W. R. D.
Shakespeare, G. H
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Petherick, M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Pilkington, R.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J
Warrender, Sir V.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Ramsbotham, H.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Ramsden, Sir E.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
White, H. Graham


Rayner, Major R. H.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Read, A. C. (Exeter)
Smithers, Sir W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Read, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Somerset, T.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Spens, W. P.
Wragg, H.


Rosbotham, Sir T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Young, A, S. L. (Partick)


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)



Rothschild, J. A. de
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rowlands. G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D, R.
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Adamson, W. M.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Sanders, W. S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Sexton, T. M.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardle, Agnes
Shinwell, E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hayday, A.
Silkin, L.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Silverman, S. S.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Simpson, F. B.


Batey, J.
Hicks, E. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Bellenger, F. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Stephen, C.


Benson G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Stokes, R. R.


Charleton, H. C.
John, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Chater, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Thorne, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Thurtle, E.


Collindridge, F.
Lathan, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Tomlinson, G.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leonard, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Day, H.
Logan, D. G,
Westwood, J.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Ede, J. G.
Maxton, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Milner, Major J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Frankel, D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallacher, W.
Muff, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Garro Jones, G. M.
paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parker, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Poole, C. C.



Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
[7.9 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Poole, C. C.


Adam., D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hayday, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hopkin, D.
Sanders, W. S.


Barnes, A. J.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Benson G.
John, W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Bromfield, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Capo, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorenson, R. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Tale, Mavis C.


Cove, W. G.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Dalton, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
MacLaren, A.
Tomlinson, G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. la M.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marklew, E.
Welsh, J. C.


Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Owen, Major G.



Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parker, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Parkinson, J. A.





NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Errington, E.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fildes, Sir H.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Balniel, Lord
Fleming, E. L.
McKie, J. H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Magnay, T.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Furness, S. N.
Maitland, Sir Adam


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Beechman, N. A.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Boulton, W. W.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Markham, S. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Marsden, Commander A.


Browns, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Bull, B. B.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonol H. (Drake)
Mayhew, Lt -Col. J.


Butcher, H. W.
Guest, MaJ. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Medlicott, F.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hambro, A. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cary, R. A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Harbord, A.
Morris. J. P. (Salford, N.)


Channon, H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Munro, P.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hopburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Higgs, W. F.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Holmes, J. S.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cooke. J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cox, Trevor
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Peake, O.


Cross, R. H.
Hunloke, H. P.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hunter, T.
Petherick, M.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ponsonby, Col, C. E.


Da Chair, S. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Porritt, R. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Procter, Major H. A.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Radford, E. A.


Dodd, J. S.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ramsbotham, H.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ramsden, Sir E.


 Drewe, C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rankin, Sir R.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lees-Jones, J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Liddall, W. S.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Dunglass, Lord
Lipson, D. L.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Eastwood, J. F.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lloyd, G. W.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Emery, J. F.
Loftus, P. C.
Rosbotham, Sir T.







Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Rowlands, G.
Spens, W. P.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Salmon, Sir I.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Salt, E. W.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Samuel, M. R. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Scott, Lord William
Sutcliffe, H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Shakespeare, G. H
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
Turton, R. H.
Wragg, H.


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. O.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)



Somerset, T.
Warrender, Sir V.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Somarville, A. A. (Windsor)
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Major Herbert.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: I beg to move, in page 15, line 41, after "prescribed," to insert:
(which shall be not less often than once a year).
The succeeding four Amendments on the Order Paper go along with this one. They deal with the same point that was dealt with on Clause 7 with regard to the publication at least once a year of a list of people concerned in this Bill. Clause 7 dealt with the holders of principals' licences. This Clause deals with exempted dealers and members of stock exchanges. I hope the Amendments will be accepted.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Cross: We welcome this series of Amendments, which will have the effect of ensuring publication of the list of members of recognised stock exchanges and associations at least once a year. My hon. Friend put down Amendments to the same effect in regard to principals' licences, which have already been passed, and this is a further series of Amendments, which we propose to accept, in regard to exempted business and also trustees of unit trusts. These Amendments will make uniform the publication at least once a year of lists of persons authorised to deal in securities.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 15, line 43, after "and," insert
as soon as may be after receiving any list furnished to them under this Sub-section.

In page 16, line 1, after "cause," insert "the list."

In line 1, leave out "at such time and."

In line 2, leave out from "proper," to end of line 3. —[Mr. Duncan.]

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 16, line 3, at the end, to insert:

(4) It shall be the duty of every recognised stock exchange or recognised association of dealers in securities whenever required by the Board so to do to furnish to the Board, with respect to any specified member of the stock exchange or association, as the case may be, a list of persons who are for the time being authorised by that member to deal in securities on his behalf.
We have just agreed that stock exchanges shall supply to the Board of Trade at certain prescribed periods lists of their members, and that these lists shall be published. The Amendment I now move is to ensure that the President of the Board of Trade shall have the right to call for the names of persons who are or may be acting as touts for particular members or particular stock exchanges. In the course of a year there may be reason to suspect that an ex-convict or an ex-share-pusher has contrived to get himself, so to speak, adopted under the wing of a registered stockbroker. Some person of doubtful antecedents, financially, may be engaged in share-pushing and getting his business transacted under the shelter of a respectable member of a stock exchange. He may be a third commission man or a half commission man.
The London Stock Exchange, in particular, engages in a system of half commission and third commission men. It allows men to act on half commission, that is, persons who may get some nominal employment with them—or it may be bankers—and gives them half commission; other persons they may regard as agents and give a third of the recognised commission. This system does not apply to some other stock exchanges. It does not apply in Glasgow, and I believe it does not apply in any of the Scottish stock exchanges, or in Manchester, but there are stock exchanges, such as London, where stockbrokers do employ


agents, or, as some people call them, touts, to introduce business to them and to receive in return one-third of the stockbroker's commission.
Unless the President of the Board of Trade is to be authorised, as and when occasion warrants, to get a list of all these agents who may be acting for a particular stockbroker, the whole purpose of this part of the Act may be rendered nugatory for a considerable period. All that our Amendment asks is that the President of the Board of Trade may have the power, and to exercise it as and when he thinks proper, to call upon any member of any recognised association of dealers to supply him with a list of the persons who are acting for that particular member. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find that there is nothing unreasonable in the Amendment. In Committee he gave us an indication, without committing himself to words, that he would look favourably upon an Amendment such as this.

Mr. Cross: The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment will give to the Board of Trade an added and very desirable power for enabling them to deal with doubtful or suspicious cases, and we shall be glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

HALL-MARKING OF FOREIGN PLATE BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 57]

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed, [No. 58.]

UNOPPOSED BILLS.

Leave given to the Chairman of Ways and Means to make a Report.

The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That, in pursuance of the Order of the House of Monday, 5th December, 1938, he had selected Mr. Boulton, from the panel appointed under Standing Order III, to act as Chairman at every meeting of a Committee on Unopposed Bills at which neither the Chairman of Ways and Means nor the Deputy-Chairman is present.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for certain transactions.)

(1) The restrictions imposed by Section one of this Act in relation to dealing in securities shall not apply to the doing of anything by, or on behalf of,—

(a) a member of any recognised stock exchange or recognised association of dealers in securities,
(b) the Bank of England, any statutory corporation or municipal corporation, any exempted dealer or any industrial and provident society or building society, or
(c) any person acting in the capacity of an approved trustee of unit trusts, or in the capacity of the manager of an authorised unit trust scheme.

(2) For the purpose of determining whether or not a person has contravened any of the restrictions imposed by Section one of this Act, no account shall be taken of his having done any of the following things (whether as a principal or as an agent), that is to say,—

(a) effecting transactions with, or through the agency of,—

(i) such a person as is mentioned in paragraph (a), paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of the preceding sub-section, or a person acting on behalf of such a person as is so mentioned, or
(ii) the holder of a principal's licence, and

(b) issuing documents which, by virtue of the Companies Act, 1929, must conform to the requirements of Section thirty-five or Section three hundred and fifty-five of that Act with respect to the contents of prospectuses, or which in fact conform to the requirements of either of those sections.

or of his having, as a principal, acquired, subscribed for or underwritten securities or effected transactions with a person whose business involves the acquisition and disposal, or the holding, of securities (whether as a, principal or as an agent).

Nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as authorising any person to hold himself out as carrying on the business of dealing in securities.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.0 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Those who were Members of the Committee on this Bill will recollect that there was a good deal of discussion during the Committee stage with regard to the scope of the activities which were brought within the purview of the Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill lays down that all who on the appointed day carried on the business of dealing in securities in one form or another should be brought within the purview of the Bill, and in Clause 24, "dealing in securities" was denned. When we came in Committee to discussion of the definition in Clause 24 it was urged that under the definition Clause a number of people and a number of activities would be brought within the scope of the Bill and would in one way or another have to be dealt with—people and activities which could not really be regarded as dangerous from the point of view of share-pushing. The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) himself moved an Amendment to alter the definition, but he subsequently withdrew that Amendment on my promise that between then and the Report stage I would see if anything could be done to meet him. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) also drew attention to the position of insurance companies, and another hon. Member drew attention to the position of the man who merely underwrote a few shares and yet under the existing definition might be brought within the scope of the Bill.
I was satisfied, from the interesting discussions that we had in Committee, that it would be well if I could devise a method to narrow the operation of Clause 1 so as to avoid causing a certain amount of inconvenience to a number of people who, from the point of view of share-pushing, were quite above suspicion. When I looked into the matter I came to the conclusion that it was impossible to achieve this object by a mere alteration of the definition in Clause 24. Therefore I put down this new Clause. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the new Clause they will see that it falls into two parts. The first part deals merely with a matter of drafting. With two minor exceptions all the substance of the first part appears already in Clause 1, lines 10 to 25, and it is merely for the convenience of drafting that by a subsequent Amendment I shall move that they be omitted from Clause 1 and that instead they form the beginning of this


new Clause. There are only two alterations in the wording of the first part. I have included industrial and provident societies and building societies among the classes which are exempted, owing to the fact that by tightening up the Clause dealing with these societies we now feel that they are adequately dealt with in their internal business. We have also exempted municipal corporations, and there is also some alteration in the wording of the Sub-section dealing with managers of unit trusts, which is due to the fact that I shall move a subsequent Amendment to define "manager of an authorised unit trust scheme" under the definition Clause.
Substantially the first part of the new Clause is merely a reproduction of words which already occur in Clause 1 of the Bill. The effective part of the new Clause is the second part, and briefly I shall describe the purpose of it. Anyone who purports to or does carry on the business of dealing in securities as defined in Clause 24 will be within the scope of the Bill, but this new Clause provides that certain activities shall be ignored when we are looking to see whether or not a man is in fact carrying on the business of dealing in securities. The transactions which are to be ignored for this purpose are, first of all, any transactions which are done with the persons or bodies set out in Sub-section (1) of the Clause. Then we have any transactions which are done with a holder of a principal's licence under the Bill; then any issuing of documents which conform, or must conform, to the requirements of the Companies Act with regard to prospectuses; and finally the specific transactions which are set out in lines 23–25 of the new Clause, that is,
having, as a principal, acquired, subscribed for or underwritten securities or effected transactions with a person whose business involves the acquisition and disposal, or the holding, of securities.
It is quite true that if the new Clause is added to the Bill a number of activities which before might have brought a person within the scope of the Bill will now be excluded from it. Of course everyone must realise that there is always a danger that when we are trying to escape from the risk of imposing too onerous conditions on people of whom we have no reason to be suspicious, we may fall into the other extreme of imposing too light obligations on the people whom we want

to catch. The proposals of the new Clause will undoubtedly relieve a good deal of inconvenience and irritation that we desire to avoid, but it will not open the door for those practices which in this Bill we are trying to defeat. The essence of successful share-pushing is a sale to the public. If you can prevent, except under control, sale of securities to the public, then I think you will defeat the ingenuity of any share-pusher successfully to carry on his profession.
If hon. Members will look at the transactions which are excepted by the second part of the new Clause they will see that they are all transactions which do not involve sale of securities to the public, and that any sale of a security to a member of the public must still come under the purview of Clause 1. I must say that as a matter of practice, and certainly as a matter of the experience of my Department in dealing with various cases of share-pushing, transactions which are done through the various classes mentioned in Sub-section (1) do not prove, and have not proved, an adequate medium for the guile of the share-pusher. Similarly, of course, hon. Members will see that to allow a man to acquire or subscribe to or underwrite shares himself does not give him any opportunity for selling shares to the public; and finally we feel that a transaction with a person whose business involves the acquisition or disposal of shares, in other words a transaction with a professional investor, is not a transaction with which this House need really concern itself, because the professional investor ought to be quite capable of looking after himself without the protection of the law. Our task is not to protect the professional man whose business it is to know about stocks and shares, but to try to protect the public, and especially the more gullible sections of the public from dealing where it is very easy to impose upon them.
In this new Clause I have tried to meet the general wishes of Members of the Committee that something should be done to exclude individuals and transactions which all felt should not fall under the scope of the Bill, and at the same time to avoid throwing the door wide open to a new avenue of share-pushing. In this new Clause I think the balance between the two extremes has been fairly kept. I believe that the new Clause will do away with nearly all the grievances to which


attention was called in Committee, and I do not think that in practice it will give any increased opportunity to the share-pusher. It is in the hope that I have thus met the wishes of Members of the Committee that I have moved the Second Reading of the new Clause.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: I think I can speak for every hon. Member on my side who was a Member of the Standing Committee when I say that this new Clause meets the points raised upstairs. We certainly have now protected municipal corporations, which were not protected previously. We have certainly protected industrial and provident societies and building societies. The second part of the new Clause deals in a different way from the way that we recommended in Committee, with the solicitor in practice who dealt: occasionally in the buying and selling of securities and of whom it was difficult to say that he was in the business of dealing in securities. We proposed in the Committee that where a solicitor drew a commission from the sale or purchase of securities he was acting as a stockbroker and not as a solicitor, and we endeavoured to get a solicitor in such a case brought within the scope of the Bill. But the President of the Board of Trade has taken a different view. He says now that a solicitor in such a case ought not to be regarded as a stockbroker and that he will deal with him in another way. He says that any solicitor who purchases or sells stock for a client through a recognised stockbroker or through an exempted dealer in securities will escape the necessity of being registered.
On the whole the right hon. Gentleman has found a better way than the way that we proposed in Committee. The solicitor who occasionally engages in this business, if he buys or sells through a recognised broker, we do not now touch, but if he engages in the business or holds himself out to be engaged in the business of buying or selling stocks or shares, I take it that he still requires to be registered individually as a dealer, and therefore he will come within the terms of the Bill. It is right that that should be so. In Scotland last year a number of solicitors who were engaged in the buying and selling of shares had to be disbarred from their profession because of what they did to their clients. It is not right that

the community should be required to wait until long years afterwards before a solicitor is caught at this game and disbarred before his nefarious activities can be stopped. Therefore, we think that, on the whole, the right hon. Gentleman has taken the better way. Provided a solicitor buys and sells through a recognised dealer registered under the Bill the Board of Trade can keep control of the registered dealer, and the registered dealer in his turn is bound to impose some kind of discipline on the people who deal with him. If the Government keep control of the registered dealer then, as far as I can see, the new Clause meets the wishes of those who desire to have the firmest possible form of control without in any way affecting legitimate interests.

4.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: The Clause undoubtedly improves the Bill in many ways, but, at the same time, I think it is somewhat indefinite, and does not touch in any way the rather vital question which has been raised on several occasions, namely, the definition of what actually dealing in securities really means. To the legal mind it is a question of fact, but to the lay mind that is a phrase which is always used when they cannot give any better definition. Let me put the question from a personal point of view. I buy stocks and shares as an investment from a registered dealer; it is very doubtful whether I can buy them from anyone who is not registered. But having bought them, I can certainly sell them only through a registered dealer. I cannot sell shares to a friend or to my brother without the transaction going through a member of a recognised stock exchange.

Mr. Stanley: It is only if the hon. and gallant Member carries on the business of buying and selling shares.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: But we have no definition of what "carrying on the business" means. It is possible for me to sell something to my brother once, but if I do it two or three times I may bring myself within the purview of the Bill.

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member's brother would not buy from him two or three times.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: The right hon. Gentleman has certainly a poor opinion of me. As it happens, I have no brother,


but I think if I had he would have a higher opinion of me than the right hon. Gentleman has. But the President of the Board of Trade has not controverted the statement I have made. Let me put another case. I have a friend abroad who thinks he has got hold of a good thing. He does not usually work through a broker, and he cables to me asking me to buy a certain amount of certain stocks and shares. As far as I can see I am rendering myself liable to six months' hard labour if I do. These, after all, are cases which do not occur very often, but I think some attempt should be made to make clear who actually is a dealer and to what extent an amateur, if I may call him so, may sell to his friends or to his family, or on behalf of people for whom he is a trustee, without rendering himself liable to all the pains and penalties under the Bill.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman in his new Clause has met a number of the points which were raised in Committee, including the underwriter point to which I drew attention. As far as the hon. and gallant Member is concerned, I do not think he need worry. I am not a lawyer, but it is quite clear that "carrying on the business" is something different from carrying through an occasional and isolated transaction. The test is, are you engaged in doing it regularly? If you do it occasionally, it is not "carrying on the business," and in practice there will be very little doubt about whether a person is or is not carrying on the business.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 9, at the end, to insert:
(d) any solicitor dealing in securities for, and on behalf of a client.
I am moving the Amendment in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman to throw a little more light on the position of solicitors. As he is no doubt aware, the provisions of the Bill are regarded with a certain amount of alarm by solicitors in Scotland. As part of a solicitor's ordinary business it happens that transfers are carried through in many cases without the assistance of stockbrokers. I understand it is the common practice to divide up the

securities among the beneficiaries under a trust, who are usually members of the deceased's family, and in some cases to transfer the whole of the securities to a residuary legatee. It frequently happens that these transactions are carried through by the solicitors. It does not seem to me that the position is entirely covered by the new Clause, and I should have thought it would have been more satisfactory to include solicitors among the exempted classes. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to other organisations, the Stock Exchange, whose members are subject to some form of discipline other than that imposed by the Bill. I should have thought that this clearly applies to the solicitors' profession. At any rate, this is a matter which has been regarded with some alarm by solicitors in Scotland, and I should like to have more explanation on the point.

Mr. de Rothschild: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: This is not an Amendment which I can ask the House to accept. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has drawn attention to the fact that certain classes are exempted on the ground that they impose internal discipline on their members, and he says that as solicitors are under an internal discipline, why should they not be exempt? The answer is that whereas the internal discipline of the Stock Exchange is directed entirely to prevention of exactly the kind of abuse we want to stop, the internal discipline of the solicitors' profession makes no provision for Stock Exchange transactions at all. If the Law Society or the corresponding bodies dealing with solicitors in Scotland were to adopt rules which in the view of the Board of Trade amply safeguarded the discipline of their members, not as solicitors but as people dealing with stocks and shares, they would be entitled to come to the Board of Trade and ask for exemption on the ground that they were a recognised body. But I feel that it would be quite wrong to exempt solicitors. What is the position? As long as a solicitor buys and sells shares through a stockbroker he is exempt, but the transaction which would bring him within the Clause is where a solicitor himself sells shares to the public. Although the vast majority of solicitors are people whose reputations are beyond doubt, you


find occasionally black sheep in their profession. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has told us of several black sheep who have been brought to light—

Mr. Johnston: Twenty-four of them.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member will realise that, in so far as it is part of the practice of a solicitor who has charge of a deceased's estate, which includes a certain number of shares which it is difficult to sell, in so far as that is an individual transaction relating to the estate, no court would hold that he was carrying on the business of dealing in stocks and shares, but if that is done regularly, if it becomes part of his business to buy from one client or a member of the public and sell to another client or to another member of the public, then, whether he calls himself a solicitor or not he is carrying on the business of dealing in stocks and shares, and, like everyone else, must come under the discipline of the Bill.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: As far as I know, members of the solicitors' profession do not ask for any provisions which are not offered to other sections of the community. I do not know whether the Popular Front has suggested this Amendment as one of the blessings they desire to impose upon us, but we have not asked for this blessing. If a solicitor is engaged in an ordinary transaction on behalf of his client he would expect to be exempt, but if he is engaged in dealing in securities for and on behalf of clients he may well expect to come within the definition of those who should be registered, and I think he ought not to ask for exemption. It is easy for a solicitor to become a cloak for illegal and improper practices, and it seems to me that the Amendment would permit this. I am glad that the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 18, to leave out "and."
This is one of three Amendments which I have been asked to move by the Institute of Auctioneers. It appears that there are certain firms in this country who do business by selling at public auction stocks and shares, mostly con-

sisting of blocks of shares in public utility companies. It occurs, for instance, when they are selling up the assets of a local bankrupt firm or the assets of an estate. The transactions are not frequent, but it may very well be, and probably it is in certain cases, that one or two firms who repeat these sales sufficiently often may be said to be carrying on the business of dealing in securities, within the wide wording of the definition.
This is a Bill that deals with what is colloquially known as share-pushing. It is true that these are sales to the public, and I listened with some apprehension to what my right hon. Friend said was his guiding principle in the new Clause, because I realise that in asking for this Amendment I am asking to have excepted from the dealings in shares one type of means of selling shares to the public. It is, however, a very special type, where the advertisements of the shares to be sold are in writing, or verbally given from the rostrum. They are properly advertised, and notice is not sent secretly through the post to individual victims or hawked from door to door, which is the method of the share-pusher. The actual sales are effected in the auction room, and it is impossible to conceive that any auctioneer will ever succeed in getting into the auction room the type of persons who are the normal victims of the share-pusher's efforts. I cannot imagine an auction room filled, for the sale of a few shares in a public utility company, by people who would be the victims of the share-pusher.
Therefore, the circumstances in which these sales take place are entirely different from the manner in which the ordinary share-pusher hawks his goods, and the transactions, although in certain cases they may amount to a considerable sum in the course of a year, are not very frequent. It is impossible for any share-pusher to be able to take advantage of this method of disposing of stocks and shares. In these circumstances, I suggest that it might be possible for my right hon. Friend to accept this particular method of selling shares by firms of auctioneers. Auctioneers already have to be licensed, and it is not every person who could have the right to auction shares.

Mr. Denman: I formally second the Amendment, but I should like to add that,


in common with the hon. and learned Mover, I am well acquainted with this perfectly beneficent practice of selling shares by auction. There is a particular class of security which is very frequently sold in this way, and that is the reversion of shares. I can hardly imagine that this well-established practice of auction shares was intended to be excluded by the Bill, but no doubt the President of the Board of Trade will make plain the exact effect of the Bill as it now stands.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: My hon. and learned Friend moved his Amendment in such a persuasive way that it is difficult to refuse him. However, I am going to face that difficulty. He said, with complete candour, that his Amendment cuts across what I laid down as the principle underlying the new Clause, namely, that the chief danger of share-pushing lay in the ability to sell to the public. Therefore, the exemptions granted in the Clause were the exemptions which did not entitle sale to the public, whereas the Amendment cuts clean through that principle, and would enable auctioneers to sell shares to the public by auction. On that ground I could prima facie reject the Amendment. On the other hand my hon. and learned Friend was perfectly fair when he recounted the normal practice of the auctioneer, and said that a practice of this kind leaves little or no scope for share-pushing.
I think the amount of the shares sold at auction by the ordinary auctioneer is very small, and that there would be very few cases where he would be brought under the terms of the Bill on the ground that he was carrying on the business of dealing in stocks and shares. There are cases, and I know of one particular case, where the whole thing is conducted in the most reputable way; but I have to ask myself not how the business is conducted now, but how it could be conducted after the passage of this Bill; when I have tried to stop up every other avenue for share-pushing and this one has been left open. These people are now conducting these auctions properly, at a time when share-pushers have infinitely easier ways of getting rid of their shares, but if I left this practice to continue it might attract the class which we hope we are driving out of the methods which they are now pursuing.
Therefore, I see considerable dangers that would arise from this practice. Soon

after the War this method was adopted by share-pushers in carrying on their activities. It is true that it was not a great success then, because they had other methods which were preferable, but I think it is clear that this is a method which could be made use of by the share-pusher, especially having regard to the power of circularisation which would attach to the exemption of sales by auction under Clause 11. In view of some prospective auction the auctioneer might circulate a catalogue containing particulars of shares which he would not be entitled to circulate otherwise. That would give an opportunity for the share-pusher to use this ability to circularise members of the public, with a view to following up the circular afterwards. I do not think that many cases will be affected by the rejection of the Amendment, or that in those few cases where the auctioneer will come under the scope of the Bill it will be really any substantial hardship or inconvenience to him to get the same permission, which will be readily granted to any honest, reputable person, on the same conditions on which anyone who deals in stocks and shares will be expected to acquire it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Deposits or guarantees required in connection with applica tions for principal's licences.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, the Board of Trade shall not grant a principal's licence unless the sum of five hundred pounds has been, and remains, deposited by the applicant for the licence with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature.

(2) Where any sum has been deposited under this Section, then—

(a) in the event of the depositor becoming bankrupt, the amount of the deposit shall be paid to the trustee in bankruptcy; or
(b) if, in a case where the depositor is a corporation, the corporation is ordered to be wound up by, or under the super vision of, the court, the amount of the deposit shall be repaid to the corporation;

and the Board of Trade may by regulations determine the circumstances in which, apart from the preceding provisions of this Subsection, a sum deposited under this Section may be withdrawn; but, save as aforesaid, no person shall be entitled to withdraw or transfer any deposit made under this Section.

(3) The Board of Trade may make such regulations as appear to them to be necessary


with respect to the investment of sums deposited under this Section, the deposit of securities in lieu of money, and the payment to the depositor of the interest or dividends from time to time accruing due on any securities in which a deposit under this Section is for the time being invested, or on any securities deposited under this Section in lieu of money.

(4) Upon any application for a principal's licence the Board of Trade may dispense with the necessity of making a deposit under this section in relation to the application—

(a) if there is given to the Board by a person approved by them an undertaking in the prescribed form that, in consideration of the Board granting such a licence upon that application, the person giving the undertaking will, upon the occurrence of the following event at any time before a further principal's licence is granted to the holder of the licence referred to in the undertaking, that is to say, the holder becoming bankrupt or, in a case where the holder is a corporation, the corporation being ordered to be wound up by, or under the supervision of, the court, pay the sum of five hundred pounds to the trustee in bankruptcy or to the corporation, as the case may be; or
(b) if the Board are satisfied that the applicant has at all times since the be ginning of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine been carrying on in Great Britain the business of dealing in securities, and that it would cause him undue hard ship to make a deposit under this section.

(5) In the event in which, by virtue of an undertaking given under the last preceding subsection, any sum becomes payable to a trustee in bankruptcy or to a corporation, the trustee or the corporation, as the case may be, shall have the power and duty to recover that sum from the person by whom it is payable; but if, in a case where any sum is paid in pursuance of such an under taking, it is found upon the administration in bankruptcy or the winding-up that the assets of the bankrupt or the corporation exceed the amount required to meet his or their debts and liabilities (including the costs and expenses of the administration or winding-up), the amount of the excess or the amount of the sum so paid, whichever is the less, shall be repaid by the trustee or corporation to, or to the personal representative of, the person by whom the under taking was given.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope we shall have better luck with this proposed new Clause than the hon. and learned Gentleman had with his Amendment. This subject was discussed at considerable length upstairs, and I think there was general agreement, not confined to Members of any one party,

that something in the nature of the proposals in this Clause ought to be accepted by the Government and inserted in the Bill. Let the House remember what we are doing. For the first time we are giving a certificate, a Government certificate, a national guarantee certificate, which will say that Mr. A, Mr. B. or Mr. C. are reputable persons, that they are legally entitled to buy and sell shares, that their bona fides have been examined by the Board of Trade and that everything known about them is to their credit. Therefore they are licensed to buy and sell shares. When they have obtained their licence they can proceed to act.
What we ask in the new Clause is that persons who get this Board of Trade certificate shall make a deposit to the State during the time that they are engaged in the business, and that they shall have interest paid upon their money. By so doing they will be compelled only to act as representatives of other professions and business are compelled to act. Some organisations, insurance for example, have to give a deposit of £20,000 to the State as security for their good behaviour during the time they are operating. We ask that the deposit should be £500, but we do not ask that the deposit shall apply necessarily to everyone who has been engaged in this business prior to 1st January of this year. There may be any number of persons who have been engaged in this business for many years, and it would be absurd to go to them wholesale at once and say, "We want £500 from you as a guarantee of your good behaviour in the future." We do, however, ask that everybody who comes into the business as from 1st January this year, who comes in with his eyes open and obtains the certificate from the President of the Board of Trade, shall be asked to put down as a security for his good behaviour in this most lucrative and dangerous business, the sum of £500, on which he will be paid interest from the time the Government hold the money. If he should go bankrupt, the £500 would inure to his estate and would be a drop in the ocean which could be distributed among his unfortunate creditors.
I do not say that this would make a very material difference in a large number of cases, but it is something that the State in giving this O.K.—if I may use


an Americanism—should get this deposit of £500 as a guarantee of good behaviour. I cannot see any reputable stockbroker disagreeing with this proposal. I know of some who whole-heartedly agree with it. We have been pleased to see that some writers in the financial Press have supported the idea and have placed the deposit which ought to be asked by the President of the Board of Trade at not less a sum than £2,000. We have not gone as far as that. We have been more modest and moderate and have asked for £500, but we ask the President of the Board of Trade to take power to impose the £500 deposit even in the case of persons who were in business before 1st January, 1939, if the Board of Trade deems it to be advisable so to do. There are some persons in this business whom we on these benches would like to see pay a very much larger deposit than £500. I think I have made clear to hon. Members what we are trying to achieve, and as there was a consensus of opinion in the Committee that this would be a very good Clause to add to the Bill, I hope the House will accept the new Clause.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I wish to support the proposed Clause. It is undeniable that the principle of the Clause is sound, and proof of that is to be obtained from the fact that it has been the practice of Stock Exchanges for a very long time to exact a deposit or security from an applicant for membership as a condition of giving him permission to transact business. I should support the Clause all the more heartily if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) had been a little bit bolder and had fixed the deposit at a higher figure than £500, because in most of the cases which have led to serious losses on the part of the public, £500 would have been no deterrent to the rogues who defrauded the public. It has been suggested that the provision of £500 might cause hardship to certain people who are in business at the present time, but I find it difficult to believe that there would be many, if any, cases of hardship. I think that most of the people concerned would be able to find, if required to do so, a sum of £500 as a security for their bona fides. In any case, as the Clause is not to apply to those who were in business prior to the end of last year, I think that difficulty has been met.

4.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): In the Committee upstairs, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) pressed his ideas on this subject and his desire that a deposit or guarantee of £500 should be required in connection with applications for a principal's licence. The matter was discussed at some length in the Committee, and my right hon. Friend and the Committee were sympathetic. Indeed, the only point that was raised was the possibility of such a provision causing hardship to existing businesses, and that point is met in the proposed Clause by giving the Board of Trade discretion to waive the deposit altogether in cases where the making of it would involve undue hardship. Although I do not wish to enter into a controversy with the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), who thinks that £500 is an inadequate figure and that it will be no deterrent to many of the rogues, I would remind him that it was because of the fear that it would be a deterrent to honest, small men if the figure were larger, that it was generally agreed that it would be best to leave it at £500. I hope the House will accept the new Clause.

Clause added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Licensing of dealers in securities.)

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "this Act," and to insert "the next following Section."
This Amendment and the following one are drafting Amendments consequential upon the insertion of the first new Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, leave out lines 9 to 25.—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Applications for, and grant and extent of, licences.)

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "as aforesaid," and to insert "in the prescribed manner."
This Sub-section deals with the powers given to the Board of Trade to grant licences both to principals and their


representatives, subject to certain conditions. During the passage of the Bill through Committee, I drew attention to the fact that the wording of Sub-section (1, b) was not clear. There was some doubt as to whether the words "as aforesaid" applied to the words "any person" or to the words "in the prescribed manner, and on payment of the prescribed fee." If they applied to the words "any person," it meant that the principal had to apply for the representative's licence, which I think was not the intention; if, on the other hand, they applied to the words "in the prescribed manner," it meant that the representative had to apply. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was good enough to look into the matter and he suggested the words now in the Amendment, which would make the matter quite: clear. I think it is now plain that, as far as the representative's licence is concerned, it is for the representative himself to apply. I hope that in the regulations which the Board of Trade are to make concerning these licences, it will be laid down that the principal must, in all circumstances, back the representative's application in order to make sure that that application has his approval.

Mr. Spens: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Cross: This is a drafting Amendment, the wording of which certainly puts the intention of the Clause beyond any possibility of doubt. I am glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Refusal and revocation of licences.)

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, to leave out "at the time," and to insert "on the occasion."
This is a drafting Amendment. It is possible that the words which we propose to omit might be construed as meaning "on the date," and if that were so, it would leave an interval of time between the date of application for a licence and the date of issue of a licence during which, under the Clause, there would be no obligation upon the applicant to notify the Board of Trade of changes in the particulars of information that he had furnished when lodging his application. I am advised that the words which we

propose to insert would cover the whole period from the lodging of the application to the time the licence is given.

Amendment agreed to.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out from "or," to the end of line 9, and to insert:
any person employed by, or associated with, the applicant or holder for the purposes of his business.
This Amendment and a later Amendment in my name to this Clause are consequential upon my previous Amendment which was accepted by the President of the Board of Trade. I think the Amendment makes it clear that if the servant of the principal has been convicted or has infringed certain provisions of the Clause, the principal's licence can be withheld or rejected.

Mr. Spens: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Cross: We welcome the extension of this Clause giving us wider powers covering those persons who might control individual businesses or partnerships while remaining in the background.

Amendment agreed to.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(iv) having supplied information which, to the knowledge of the applicant or holder, is false or misleading in a material respect
I move this Amendment because I am anxious that there should be added to the grounds upon which the Board of Trade may revoke a licence the fact that an applicant has supplied information which he knew to be false, on which information presumably the licence was granted. I moved a similar Amendment in Committee, and I gathered that there was no difference of opinion between the President of the Board of Trade and me as to the desirability of the Board of Trade being in a position to revoke a licence if, in fact, the licence had been obtained on the basis of false information. I gathered, however, that the right hon. Gentleman took the view that that point was already covered in another part of the Bill. He undertook to look into the matter further, and I understand that today he still holds the view that the matter is already covered elsewhere in the Bill.
I will explain to the House in what way the President of the Board of Trade


alleges that the matter is covered. First, he says that it is covered in Clause 15, because under that Clause it is possible to take criminal proceedings against a person who has supplied false information with a view to getting a licence, and such a person may be convicted, and under the Clause with which we are now dealing, where a person has been convicted of an offence under the Act, the Board of Trade may revoke the licence. I submit that that does not entirely cover the ground, because under these provisions it is necessary first of all to take criminal proceedings and it is only after the conviction has been obtained that the Board is in a position to revoke the licence. I submit it should be possible for the Board at any time, as soon as it discovers that false information has been supplied with a view to getting a licence, to revoke the licence, without necessarily having to go through the procedure of obtaining a conviction. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman says that the matter is covered by Clause 3, Sub-section (2, b), which reads:
by reason of any other circumstances whatsoever which, in relation to any such person as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph, reflect discredit upon his method of conducting business.
I do not know whether that covers the point or not. If it does, it does so in a very roundabout and circumlocutory way, and I see no reason why, if the President of the Board of Trade holds this power to revoke a licence where it has been obtained as a result of giving false information, it should not be stated in plain, unequivocal terms. My Amendment would make it clear beyond any doubt that the Board has the right to revoke a licence where it has been obtained on the basis of false information. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, after considering the matter again, will see his way to accept the Amendment. It is important that he should have this power, although he might not use it in cases where the mis-statement was unimportant or slight, to revoke a licence at once without having to go through any other procedure, and that there should be no doubt as to whether he has the power or not.

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to second the Amendment.

5 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I have no quarrel with the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin)

as to the purpose of his Amendment. It is clear that a man who has knowingly supplied false information is a man who in no circumstances should be allowed to enjoy the privileges to be given under this Bill. When the hon. Gentleman moved a similar Amendment in Committee, I thought there was considerable point in his argument but I pointed out then that it would be possible, even as the Bill stood, to prosecute such a man under Clause 15 and then use that prosecution for the revocation of the licence under Clause 3 (2 b). I think the hon. Gentleman was right in arguing that might prove to be a long procedure and that if you discovered that a man had given false information, you should get that man off the register as soon as possible. Had it not been for another proposal on the Paper I should have tried to meet the hon. Gentleman's point, although perhaps not exactly in the form of this Amendment. I do intend however to accept the next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick).
I am advised that under the terms of that Amendment there will be no doubt that in a case such as the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I shall have power to revoke the licence without what the hon. Gentleman described as the circumlocutory and delaying method of prosecuting, and then proceeding under Clause 3. I think it is clear that without his Amendment, but under the new wording introduced by the next Amendment, I shall be able to do exactly what he wants. I would not wish to put into the Bill any words which were unnecessary, but in any case I do not think that, from the point of view of drafting, the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman are particularly suitable. If he looks at the three conditions in the Clause to which his Amendment proposes to add a fourth, he will see that all three relate to definite facts such as a conviction or a breach of the rules, whereas his Amendment would introduce a question of opinion as to whether false information had been supplied to the knowledge of the applicant or not. While entirely agreeing with the hon. Member's desire that anyone who supplies false information should have his licence revoked at the earliest possible moment, I hope that on the assurance that the next Amendment will fully cover his point he will withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: I do not yet agree with the President of the Board of Trade on this matter, and I would like an assurance from him that he will have another look at the question to make certain.

Mr. Stanley: I shall certainly have another look. I have gone into the matter very carefully and have had the most categorical advice that the point is covered, but I will have a further talk with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General about it.

Mr. Silkin: On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, to leave out from "which," to the end of line 25, and to insert:
either are likely to lead to the improper conduct of business by, or reflect discredit upon the method of conducting business of, the applicant or holder or any person so employed by or associated with him as aforesaid.
This is largely consequential on an Amendment which I moved earlier and to which the House agreed. Incidentally, I think it covers the point raised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin).

Mr. Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(References to tribunal of inquiry.)

5.6 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, after "of," to insert "the service of."
This is a drafting Amendment and has reference to the service of notice of the intention of the Board of Trade to refuse or revoke a licence. The object is to ensure that the 14 days referred to in the Sub-section shall be from the date of the service of the notice, and not from the actual issue of the notice.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, to leave out from "chairman," to the end of line 20, and to insert:
and one other person appointed by the Lord Chancellor being members of the legal profession, and one person appointed by the

Treasury, being a person who appears to the Treasury to be experienced in matters of finance or accountancy and not being a person in His Majesty's service.
A person appointed to the tribunal shall be appointed to be a member thereof for a specified period not being less than three years, subject to such conditions with respect to the vacation of his office in the event of his incapacity or resignation as may be imposed before the time of his appointment; and a person ceasing to hold office as a member of the tribunal shall be eligible for re-appointment thereto.
In the Bill the proposal is that the tribunal of inquiry should consist of a chairman who shall be a member of the legal profession, appointed by the Lord Chancellor and two persons appointed by the Treasury. In Committee a wish was expressed that this legal representation might be extended, and the Amendment has that effect. Instead of only one member, the Chairman, being nominated by the Lord Chancellor, under the Amendment the chairman and one other member of the tribunal will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and will be members of the legal profession. In addition, the tribunal which is to make these inquiries will have one member appointed by the Treasury being a person who appears to the Treasury to be experienced in matters of, finance and accountancy, and, what is not unimportant, he must not be a person in His Majesty's service.
The purpose of these conditions is to deal with the objections which were raised by various members of the Committee including the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely Hutchinson) and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The opinion was expressed in Committee that the tribunal should be kept as free as possible from executive influence and on that point I would emphasise what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said upstairs. We could never concede for a moment that an appointment made by the Lord Chancellor would, in the ordinary sense, be an appointment made by the Government of the day. If that were so it would be a negation of the duties which the Lord Chancellor has to perform in the appointment of judges, magistrates and others. In practice, the Treasury will consult the appropriate financial and accountancy interests before giving their approval to the appointment of the other member of the tribual. The second part of the Amendment is designed to meet a suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon


(Mr. H. G. Williams) that there should be some security of tenure for the members of the tribunal. I think it can be said that the Amendment meets nearly all the points that were brought to our notice in Committee in this connection.

Mr. Leach: Would a city treasurer be accounted as being in the service of His Majesty?

The Solicitor-General: No, I think not.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Spens: If we must have an independent tribunal for this purpose, the constitution proposed in the Amendment is an immense improvement on the original proposal in the Bill. But I wish to take this opportunity to repeat my protest against independent tribunals being set up to deal with disputes between members of the public and the executive. To my mind, everything which I said on Second Reading in criticism of this Clause stands good. I cannot see why matters in dispute between the executive and the subject should not go to the one really independent tribunal which has been established for centuries, namely, His Majesty's courts of law.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: For our part we say, "Let every trade union stand up for its own rights" and the hon. and learned Gentleman is, no doubt, right in putting in a plea for his own profession.

Mr. Spens: For the courts of law, which is quite a different matter.

Mr. Johnston: We hold other views about the handing over of everything to gentlemen who have passed the Bar examinations, eaten so many dinners and walked so many yards up and down the Floor of Parliament House. We believe there are other qualifications for dealing with these matters than a knowledge of Roman or canonical law. Therefore, to the extent that the Government have accepted the suggestion that there should be someone on this tribunal with special knowledge of finance, we welcome it, and we would have accepted the tribunal in the Bill because of the speed and cheapness with which it could act. I would beg the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) to remember that the purpose of the Bill is to catch rogues quickly. It is not to provide what one of my hon. Friends described as a

circumlocutory method of delaying proceedings. In the past, rogues have discovered ways and means of using the courts of law for purposes of delay.
I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman one instance. A share-pushing rogue, arrested in Edinburgh, secured repeated adjournments until he had spun out the time to 14 months. Then the mischief had been done and he disappeared, and the Lord Advocate came to the conclusion that it would be a waste of public money to proceed further against him. We do not want a repetition of that kind of thing. Judges' rules are very proper for the protection of the subject in ordinary matters, but the whole purpose of the Bill is to enable us to act quickly. There will be on the tribunal two nominees of the Lord Chancellor who, in effect, will be judges, plus a member skilled in matters of finance. It will be a tribunal capable of acting speedily and cheaply, and I do not see why the hon. and learned Gentleman should protest any further. Let us get on with the job of stopping these rogues.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I have a good deal of sympathy with the protest of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). It is true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that time is frequently of the essence of the contract in trying to catch these rogues, but I think it could be argued on similar lines, that every form of crime should be dealt with effectively and speedily. It is always possible to put up a special case in special circumstances, but the broad and general legal position in this country is that the administration of the law and the decision of legal points in relation to all crimes should be in the hands of a judge who is irremovable, at any rate, save by Resolution of the Houses of Parliament. Here we have a tribunal appointed for three years. There is a definite cleavage of interest in one respect between the subject and the Crown, and it may be that the balance of advantage is on the side of the procedure adopted in the Amendment, but I do not want this procedure to be adopted without some protest and some warning of the danger if it should become the common practice.

Amendment agreed to.

5.16 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, to leave out "hear or".

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5. —(Rules of Board of Trade with respect to conduct of business of licensed dealers.)

5.17 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, after "and," to insert:
in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this Sub-section.
The object of the Amendment is that the Board of Trade shall not be restricted when it frames rules to the matters that follow in paragraphs (a), (b), and so on. They want to have a perfectly free hand to be able to make rules generally prescribing how the business should be carried on.

Amendment agreed to.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert:
(b) for prescribing forms of contracts which may be used in making contracts under the authority of a licence, and directing that where any contract is made under the authority of a licence otherwise than in the appropriate form prescribed by the rules, the holder of the licence shall, for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this Act relating to the refusal and revocation of licences, be deemed to have committed a breach of the rules.
This is a matter which I mentioned in Committee. As the Bill stands, it might be that under the rules authorised for determining the form of a contract with persons who sell stocks and shares otherwise than strictly in accordance with the rules, a transaction might be found void, and in fact the persons might be committing an offence under the Act. In those circumstances the modification proposed is that the rules may prescribe the forms of contract which may be used and direct that where any contract is made under the authority of a licence otherwise than in the appropriate form prescribed by the rules the holder of the licence shall be deemed to have committed a breach of the rules.

Mr. Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.20 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. I think his Amendment certainly effects an improvement. The consequence to third parties of invalidating a contract would be very serious. The proper penalty for a breach of rules is one imposed on the person who breaks the rules, and this Amendment will ensure that minor breaches of the rules will be matters merely of breaches of rules and will not invalidate a contract. I recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

5.21 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 4, at the end, to insert:
(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason only of a breach of rules made under this Section.
This is in a way a supplementary part of the Amendment that the House has just carried. A breach of statutory rules is a Common Law misdemeanour, and the proper way to deal with breaches of rules is to revoke the licence.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7. —(Publication of names of holders of principals' licences.)

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, to leave out from "published," to "at," in line 40.
On the Committee stage I raised the point that the list of principals' licences should be published and kept up-to-date, and in order that it should be kept up-to-date the lists should be published at least once a year. I have been given this form of words, which carries out what I wanted to do on the Committee stage.

Mr. Spens: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Cross: This Amendment and the next one, which is consequential upon it, are purely drafting Amendments, and I think they are an improvement on the words already in the Bill. We shall, therefore, be pleased to accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 42, at the end, insert:
so however that the said information shall be published not less often than once a year."—[Mr. Duncan.]

CLAUSE 8. —(Provisions as to industrial and provident societies.)

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 8, line 13, after "classes," to insert:
or
(ii) otherwise for the benefit of the community.
Now we come to a different part of the Bill, dealing with industrial and provident societies and building societies. Since this matter was discussed on the Committee stage, I have had evidence to show that the definitions of societies to be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act are too narrow. I have had several cases brought to my notice, and one case—and hon. Members will realise, therefore, the weight that I attach to it—comes from my own constituency. It is, as a matter of fact, a society composed of a number of gentlemen who are my personal friends. It is so clearly the type of society which should be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, but which, under this definition, it would be possible for the Registrar to strike off, that I should like to give the House some details about it. It is a society called the Lake District Farm Estates, Limited, the purpose of which is to buy up farms in the Lake District to preserve the amenities and to prevent building and spoliation. It is an attempt to give to persons with limited means a chance to come into schemes which are being carried out on a big scale in the Lake District, namely, the buying of considerable tracts of land to hand over to the National Trust.
The idea of the Society was to allow people who could afford to spare a few pounds to do the same things as the bigger societies are doing in this respect. The Society has issued debentures which yield the princely rate of interest of 2 per cent. It also issues shares, though it is true with no limit to the dividend on the shares, but in the appeal for money the promoters of the Society say that with a great deal of luck the return on the money may reach a maximum of 3 per cent. In order, however, to prevent anybody being too greedy and trying to get too great an advantage, the amount of shares which anyone may hold is limited to £200. I think the House will agree that that is the kind of society, that that is the kind of restriction, and that that

is the kind of object which we want to see registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, though under the definition as at present drawn it would not be able to satisfy the Registrar, because the test must be that it promotes the social wellbeing of the working class, whereas anything done to preserve the amenities of the Lake District is for social wellbeing of all classes of the community, including the working class.
I have had other examples of that kind brought to my notice, and I have attempted in this Amendment to cover cases of that kind. It might be thought at first sight that the scope of the words "otherwise for the benefit of the community" might be too wide, but I would point out that they have to be read in conjunction with the subsequent words that there are special reasons why the society should be registered. Therefore, the society would not only have to show that it was for the benefit of the community, but that it was of such exceptional benefit to the community that there were special reasons why it should be registered. If we adopt this definition, it is certain that it would leave within the scope of the Act the type of society to which I have drawn attention and which I think all hon. Members will agree is the very type of society which should have the benefit of the Act.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly add to the explanation which he has just given? I am sure that nobody in the House would cavil in the slightest degree at enabling a society existing solely for the purpose of preserving public amenities to get the benefit of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, but has he any power to see to it in the Bill that any such society, still being licensed under the Act, should not be a co-operative society? Has he power, or has the Registrar any power, to prevent any such society from using a misleading title? For example, there is a common misuse of the word "co-operative" by concerns which are not co-operative societies at all, and some of them have been of great disadvantage to the public when they have appealed for debentures or funds of any kind. When the right hon. Gentleman is widening his Clause to enable beneficent societies of the type he designated


to come in as provident societies, has he any power to prevent any of these other societies, which are not bona fide co-operative societies, using misleading titles which may be to the disadvantage of the community?

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I am not quite certain of my answer, but I understand there is some power to prevent the use of misleading titles. I also understand that that would apply to the use of the word "co-operative." If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I would like to look into that point further and will let him know what the answer is.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman add to that answer that if he finds that the apprehensions to which I have given vent do exist, and if he agrees with us that there is anything in the nature of the use of misleading titles which will be wrong, will he undertake to put the matter right in another place?

Mr. Stanley: I should not like to give any promise about something as to which there is uncertainty. I cannot give a copyright to the word "co-operative," but I will look into cases which are definitely misleading, and perhaps before the Bill is considered in another place I may have a talk with the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 8, line 32, to leave out from the first "to," to "been," in line 33, and to insert:
acquire or offer to acquire shares in the share capital of, or to lend or deposit money to or with, the society or any other person.
This is a drafting Amendment and describes better than the old words the type of security with which an industrial and provident society can deal.

Amendment agreed to.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: I beg to move, in page 8, line 33, to leave out "to the public."
This Amendment deals with the proviso to Sub-section (2). As the Bill stands it covers only public issues. I want it to cover private issues such as mortgages and loans. This Amendment to leave out "to the public" fulfils my wish.

Mr. Spens: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is an important matter, because it really applies to all those bucket shops which at present carry on their operations under the guise of being registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. There is a doubt whether they issue capital to the public, and by omitting these words we shall catch the type of financial transaction which it is intended should be caught.

Mr. Stanley: As the Bill left Committee, it covered only the case where there was a circularisation by the societies to others than its own members. It is clear now that the circularisation of its own members may bring the proviso into operation. I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

5.36 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, at the end, to insert:
and
(b) before deciding to cancel under this Sub-section the registry of any society, the registrar shall consider any representations with respect to the proposed cancellation made to him by the society within the period which, by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section nine of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, must elapse between the giving to the society of the notice required by that Sub-section and the cancelling of the registry, and, if the society so requests, afford it an opportunity of being heard by him within that period.
We are giving to the Registrar additional powers to cancel registries of friendly societies. It ought to be presumed that the registrar would hear any representations from the societies that were about to be cancelled, but to make it certain we are putting a specific provision in the Bill requiring him to listen to the representations and to give them an opportunity of being heard before cancellation.

Mr. Bellenger: What is the period within which a society has power to ask for its case to be heard as specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act?

The Solicitor-General: The period is two months.

Mr. Duncan: May I thank my right hon. Friend for putting this Amendment down? I originally raised this matter in Committee and was supported by the


hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), and urged that the Registrar should have some powers of dealing with certain aspects of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act.

Amendment agreed to.

5.38 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(3) Where the registrar gives notice under Sub-section (3) of Section nine of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, of his intention to cancel the registry of a society in the exercise of his powers under this Section, then, if it appears to him at any time after the expiration of one month from the date of the giving of the notice that there have not been taken the steps which, by that time, could reasonably have been taken for the purpose—

(a) of converting the society into a company under the Companies Act, 1929, or amalgamating the society with, or transferring its engagements to, such a company, in accordance with Section fifty-four of the said Act of 1893; or
(b) of dissolving the society in one of the ways mentioned in Section fifty-eight of the said Act of 1893;
he may give such directions as he thinks fit for securing that the affairs of the society are wound up before the cancelling of the registry takes effect; and any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any such directions shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
We are extending the powers of the Registrar to cancel registration in the case of societies that do not fall within paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1). He has, in case of his desire to cancel societies that do not come within those exceptions, to give two months notice. The Amendment would give an opportunity to a society, if it so wished, to convert itself into or to amalgamate with or to transfer its engagements to a company, or to dissolve or to wind up voluntarily. It seems only reasonable that it should have a chance of doing that in preference to being cancelled. It can do it within a period of one month, and if it does so the order for cancellation will not take place.

Amendment agreed to.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 8, line 41, at the end, to insert:
(5) If, with respect to any industrial and provident society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, before

the twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, it appears to the registrar—

(a) that neither of the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section is fulfilled in the case of that society, and
(b) that it would be in the interests of persons who hold shares in the share capital of or who have rights in respect of money lent to or deposited with, the society or any other person that the society should be wound up,
the registrar may present to the court a petition for the winding up of the society.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) said, he and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) raised during the Committee stage with a great deal of force the question of some of the industrial and provident societies. They pointed out that if, after a certain date, a society attempted to raise fresh money, the registrar would have power under the Clause to cancel registration. They gave cases which they knew of societies on the Register which, according to their accounts—and undoubtedly the Committee were much impressed by the accounts they gave—were frankly either dishonest or, if not dishonest, were so inefficient and extravagant that the members' money was being rapidly dissipated. If they did not choose to apply for more money the Registrar would have no power and would have to sit still while whatever money remained was being dissipated before it could be returned to the original members. I and all other members of the committee were much impressed by the case made out by the two hon. Gentlemen, and I promised that I would do my best to meet it by giving to the Registrar some additional power to deal with cases where he thought that the investors' interests were being imperilled and where action might result in something being saved from the wreck.
This Amendment provides that in cases where the new and more stringent conditions which are laid down for industrial and provident societies are not fulfilled, and where the Registrar thinks it would be in the interests of persons who hold the shares or who have other rights in the society that the society should be wound up, he is entitled to present a petition to the court for its winding up. I feel that it is right in a case of this kind, where we are dealing perhaps with a society which has been on the register for a long time, that the appeal should


be to the court, but it certainly gives the Registrar a power which he does not now possess to deal with the case of a society which is dishonestly or extravagantly dissipating its funds, and to deal with it with sufficient rapidity to enable something to be saved from the wreck. I think the Amendment fully meets the case made by the two hon. Gentlemen.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I would like to ask the President whether he thinks that a case which I submitted to him in Committee is covered by the new power which the Registrar will have as a consequence of this Amendment. For example, paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) says that it must be shown to the satisfaction of the Registrar that the society is a bona fide co-operative society. There are co-operative societies and co-operative societies. I have particulars of one here. I will not give it the benefit of a public advertisement. I have the literature of one calling itself a Co-operative Property Society, Limited, in which they are offering investors £6 11s. 2d., "safe, sure." There is nobody who can offer £6 11s. 2d., "safe, sure." I wonder whether, under the new powers, the Registrar could immediately present a petition to the court for the winding up of this concern, or whether he could strike it off as a non-bona-fide co-operative society and compel it to become a company, and, therefore, be subject to the provisions of the Companies Act. Who is to define what is a bona fide co-operative society? Has the Registrar to go to the court for a ruling as to whether a particular society is bona fide or not, or has he himself the sole decision as to what is a bona fide co-operative society?

5.44 p.m

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman has met the representations in Committee of the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) and myself very reasonably. I rise only to ask him whether members of the public, other than the actual shareholders or depositors in a society which may be suspect, will have the right to put before the Registrar information which may lead him to take the action contemplated in this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware from the illustrations already given to him that not only have Members of

this House brought various things to his notice, but that the public Press has performed a very useful service in calling the attention of the public to the undoubted swindles now taking place under the shelter of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. Therefore, I should be glad to know whether the Registrar will be able to listen to any information about a society, from whatever quarter it may come, when making up his mind whether a prima facie case has been made out for him to take action.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The Registrar is entitled to accept from any quarter information which will enable him to make out a case. With regard to the question put by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), I do not know the exact particulars of that society, but the fact that it chose the title "co-operative society" would not make it a bona fide co-operative society within the meaning of this Clause. In Sub-section (6) of the Clause there is a definition of what such a society must be. I am assuming that the society to which he referred and which offers such very substantial dividends is not a co-operative society within that interpretation, but a society working with the object of making profits for the payment of interest and dividends. That being so the position of the Registrar would be as follows: If a society of that kind tried to register in future he could refuse it registration. If it were already registered and tried to get more money, then he could strike it off. He could cancel the registration on the ground that it was not a bona fide co-operative society. If it does not try to get more money then, as it is not a bona fide co-operative society, he could petition for it to be wound up if he thought the interest of the members required it; in other words, if he thinks it is bankrupt or fraudulent then, as it is not a bona fide co-operative society, he can use this new procedure.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman said that Sub-section (6) laid down the condition which would have to be satisfied in order to enable a society calling itself "co-operative" to be deemed a co-operative society for this purpose, but that is not strictly so. The Sub-section excludes one particular case but does not purport to be a definition Sub-section.

Mr. Stanley: I am sorry if the hon. Member was misled, but I made it quite clear that Sub-section (6) excluded the particular case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Amendment agreed to.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, after "any," to insert "person who is or has been an."
I should like to explain at the same time the following Amendment, which is consequential upon this one. The object of these two Amendments is to enable these powers to be applied to an ex-officer of a society as well as to an existing officer. The Registrar has had considerable experience of what has happened in previous cases. Where an inquiry is imminent the existing officers may leave and the new officers may be found to be unable to answer any questions. It may often be necessary to examine the ex-officers. Precedent for this is to be found in the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and in the Industrial Insurance Act, 1923, and I submit that these powers will help the Registrar to have the investigation properly conducted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 9, line 4, leave out "officer," and insert "person."

In line 8, after the first "of," insert "any of."

In line 8, leave out "Sub-section (2)," and insert "Sub-sections (2), (3), and (5)."

In line 13, leave out "Any person who," and insert "If any society or other person."

In line 14, after "Sub-section," insert "the society or person."—[Mr. Stanley.]

5.53 p.m

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 9, line 17, at the end, to insert:
( ) The registrar may, if he considers it just, direct that all or any of the expenses incurred by him in exercising his powers under the last preceding Sub-section in relation to any society shall, either wholly or to such extent as he may determine, be defrayed out of the funds of the society or by the officers or former officers thereof or any of them, and any sum which any society or other person is required by such a direction to pay shall be a debt due to the registrar from that society or person.

This Amendment confers upon the Registrar, in connection with these inquiries, similar powers to those granted to him in investigations under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, and the Building Societies Act, 1894. Inquiries of this kind may involve very considerable expense, and that expense may be largely increased if the society adopts obstructive tactics and tries to spin out the investigation, or if during the investigation irregularities are discovered which have to be followed up and exposed, and it seems to me that in those cases the Registrar should have a power to make the society bear some part of the cost, or the whole of the cost, of the investigation, rather than that it should fall upon the Treasury. If it is nothing more than a routine investigation to enable the Registrar to see whether the objects of the society bring it within paragraphs (a) and (b), naturally this power would not be used, but where it is an investigation which is designed to say whether the transactions of the society are bona fide and honest and in which obstructive tactics are met with or grave irregularities are disclosed, I think it is right that the Registrar should have this power and that having the power he should exercise it.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I cannot help feeling a little uneasy about the width of the language used in this Sub-section. I recognise that it is very largely, and I am not sure that it is not entirely, the same language as is used in the other Sub-section, but it is nevertheless a new power in this instance. I do not think anybody would object to the Registrar having power, in any circumstances such as the right hon. Gentleman has described, to charge his costs against the funds of the society or, indeed, in a suitable case against the private property of some person, who need not even be a member of the society, because the words are:
any society or other person,
and that might be anybody at all. Where obstruction has been employed and what otherwise might have been a speedy and cheap investigation has become a long and costly one, it is right that there should be such a power, but the Sub-section is not in any way limited. It says:


The Registrar may, if he considers it just,
direct that some one shall pay the costs which he has incurred. I do not know whether any right of appeal exists or whether the Registrar's discretion is absolute and cannot be appealed against. If it were absolute it would be a very wide power. I accept the statement that he has this power already in some cases, but is that any argument why we should extend it? He would be the investigating officer, the witness, the prosecutor and the judge in his own case, and having decided the case in his own favour he would then proceed to award himself costs against any individual who he might think had acted unjustly. Unless he is to be a superman it is possible that somewhere and at some time injustice might creep in through the exercise of powers so wide, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the Registrar's discretion is in any way controlled or checked by anybody at any point, and whether there is any appeal, and, if not, whether there ought not to be.

Mr. Stanley: These powers have been exercised by the Registrar for 46 years, and during that time there has never been any complaint, so far as I am aware, that they have been arbitrarily or unjustly used. Even if this Amendment were rejected he would still exercise, in connection with every other form of inquiry which he holds, the powers which he has exercised for 46 years, and I cannot see anything which differentiates this type of inquiry from the types of inquiry under the three previous Acts, which all contain provisions of this kind. Even if the limitation suggested by the hon. Member could be included it would still be at the discretion of the Registrar, still be for him to decide, and I cannot help feeling that it is a salutary power from the point of view of securing a speedy investigation.

Amendment agreed to.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), and to insert:
or amalgamates with, or transfers its engagements to, any such company in accordance with the said section—

(a) the amount which is to form the nominal share capital of the company or, as the case may be, the amount of any increase made in the amount of the nominal

share capital of the company by reason of the amalgamation or transfer shall, for the purpose of the charge to stamp duty under Section one hundred and twelve of the Stamp Act, 1891, be treated as being reduced by an amount equal to the amount which, immediately before the said twenty-sixth day of July, formed the paid-up share capital of the society;
(b) no stamp duty shall be payable on any conveyance, assignment, or other instrument of transfer, of any of the property of the society, being an instrument executed in pursuance of the conversion, amalgamation or transfer, as the case may be; and
(c) the fees which, by virtue of Section three hundred and thirteen of the Companies Act, 1929, become payable on the registration of the company or, as the case may be, payable by the company in connection with the amalgamation or transfer, shall be deemed to have been paid."

Hon. Members will remember that under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Clause, the Registrar has power to cancel the registry of a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, and thereupon that society has the option within one year of the cancellation of converting itself into a company under the Companies Act, 1929. In paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 5, no Stamp Duty or fees are charged on the conversion of this provident, society into a limited company. It may be that the society whose registry is cancelled might not convert itself into a limited company, but might amalgamate with another company or transfer its obligations and assets to the other company registered under the Companies Act. Therefore, it is suggested that where an amlagamation of this sort takes place, or a transference of the assets and liabilities of a society whose registry has been cancelled, to another company, the aggregate share capital of the newly-formed company shall not incur Stamp Duty or fees. This is only an extension of the present provision already in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 5. I think that the right hon. Gentleman can accept this Amendment because it seems to follow from an Amendment which has already been passed, moved by him, providing for such a transaction, namely, the amalgamation or the transference of the assets or liabilities of such a society.

Mr. Ede: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman, and I think also the right hon. Gentleman the


Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), called attention to this point on Committee and claimed that it was a necessary extension of the privilege that we had already given under this Clause to a society which, within the period of time, wished to convert itself into a company. During the discussion on the Committee stage I admitted the correctness of the hon. Gentleman's contention in principle, but doubted the actual drafting of the Amendment which he had put down and which did not appear to cover all the cases. In the Amendment which we are now considering the drafting omissions have been corrected, and it covers all the possible cases. It is certainly an alteration which should be made, and I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9. —(Provisions as to building societies.)

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 10, line 15, to leave out from the second "to," to "shall," in line 16, and to insert:
acquire or offer to acquire any shares in the share capital of, or to lend or deposit money to or with, the society or any other person.
This Amendment and that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) are exactly the same Amendments, applying to Clause 9, as have already been accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 17, leave out "to the public."—[Mr. Duncan.]

6.6 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 26, at the end, to insert:
Provided that, before deciding to make an order under this Sub-section with respect to any society, the Registrar shall serve on the society a written notice stating his intention to make the order, and shall consider any representations with respect to the proposed order made to him by the society within the period of one month from the date of the service of the notice, and, if the society so requests, afford it an opportunity of being heard by him within that period.
The Clause enables the Registrar to prohibit building societies, with the approval of the Treasury, of course, inviting fresh capital. The Amendment is a further safeguard in the interests of the building societies. First of all the Clause

provides that the approval of the Treasury must be obtained by the Registrar before deciding to make an order, and the Amendment provides that the Registrar must send a notice to the society and must consider any representations which the society may make, within the period of one month from the date of the notice. These safeguards are adequate in the view of the building society representatives.

Amendment agreed to.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move, in page 10, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(2) Any building society against which an order has been made under Sub-section (1) of this Section shall have a right of appeal to the tribunal against such order within a period of twenty-eight days of the order being made and the tribunal, after hearing evidence of the Registrar and the appellant building society, may either confirm or quash the order made by the Registrar.
Obviously Clause 9 is good, in that it is designed to prevent the exploitation of building societies by undesirable persons, but if it goes through in its present form there will be a sort of bureaucratic control by Government Departments. From that control there will be no right of appeal whatsoever. The object of the Amendment is to make provision for that right of appeal against any order of the Registrar, that appeal to be made before the tribunal of inquiry set up under Clause 4. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, as at present worded, Clause 9, should the Registrar and the Treasury so desire, prevents all building societies throughout the country from appealing to the public for funds at all, and there will be no right of appeal by the building societies from that decision.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so with the object of getting some explanation from the Government. When the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with provident societies he was on rather different ground, because a society registered under the Provident Societies Act can escape by converting itself into a limited company. A building society is in another category. It simply goes out of business if it is prohibited from raising further capital. As the Bill now stands there is no appeal. The Mover of the Amendment is asking only that any


building society which feels it has a substantial grievance shall have a right of appeal to the tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The tribunal would see to it that there was no capricious cancellation of the building societies' rights of appealing for fresh money. It is in the interest of the administration of the law in this country that this House should not give the impression that in the removing of irregularities and swindles it is setting up an uncontrolled bureaucracy.
This Amendment should be reasonably considered by the President of the Board of Trade. The Registrar must not be placed in a position in which he might land himself, his Department, the Government of the day and the whole administration of this Act into disrepute. I am sure that any official will welcome baying taken away from him the power which is given in Clause 9, as it now stands, to stop the operation of any building society, and the President of the Board of Trade might be well advised to give any building society the right to go before the tribunal and to appeal. If the building society has no case it will not waste its time and money in going before the tribunal, but if it has a case, that case should be heard. No doubt there are cases in which building societies might have the effrontery to go before the tribunal, but if there be such cases it is not right that bona fide societies should be debarred by the arbitrary or unjust exercise of the powers conferred in the Clause.

6.13 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: In every case in which an appeal lies from the Registrar, it lies to the court. It would be introducing a novelty in regard to the Registrar if we gave an appeal from a decision of his to a tribunal which had been set up ad hoc for a quite different purpose under the Bill. I believe that my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) will recognise that that is an important reason why this Amendment should not be accepted, at any rate, in its present form. We thought we had inserted adequate safeguards. First of all there is the safeguard of the Treasury having to give approval. Secondly, there is the Amendment which I have just moved, and which the House has just accepted, giving a

society an opportunity of being heard and of making representations. The only effect of that in law, I am bound to say, would be to ensure something like a judicial hearing. Those safeguards have commended themselves to and have satisfied the Building Societies Association, which represents a capital of about £520,000,000, and it had been hoped that nothing more would be necessary.
My right hon. Friend, however, listening to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, was impressed by the contrast which he pointed out between the situation of an industrial and provident society and that of a building society under the Bill. In the case of the industrial and provident society it always has the loophole that it can convert itself into a limited company. A building society could do that also, but the administrative difficulties would be very considerable. That being the situation, my right hon. Friend authorises me to say that, while this Amendment, for the reasons I have given, would not be satisfactory, he will look into the whole position again with a view to seeing whether a safeguard of the kind aimed at cannot be inserted in the Bill while it is passing through the other House. With that assurance, I hope my hon. Friend will be able to see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the assurance which the Solicitor-General has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 10, line 31, after "any," to insert "person who is or has been an."
This and the four following Amendments are all similar to those which we have already discussed and passed on Clause 8.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 10, line 32, leave out "officer," and insert "person."

In page 11 line 1, leave out "Any person who," and insert "If any society or other person."

In line 2, after "Sub-section," insert "the society or person."

In line 5, at the end, insert:
(4) The registrar may, if he considers it just, direct that all or any of the expenses


incurred by him under the last preceding Sub-section in relation to any society shall, either wholly or to such extent as he may determine, be defrayed out of the funds of the society, or by the officers or former officers thereof or any of them; and any sum which any society or other person is required by such a direction to pay shall be a debt due to the registrar from that society or person." —[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Penalty for fraudulently inducing persons to invest money.)

6.18 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 11, line 18, to leave out "purchasing, selling," and to insert "acquiring, disposing of."
The object of this and the following Amendment is to define more accurately what are the improper acts with which the Clause deals, and we have selected somewhat wider words than those which already appear in the Bill. The words we propose will ensure that barter transactions involving the exchange of one block of securities for another will be covered. The next Amendment—in page 11, line 19, after "securities," to insert:
or lending or depositing money to or with any industrial and provident society or building society 
—is to describe more accurately the capital of industrial and provident societies. This does not normally consist only of shares and debentures, but includes also loan capital and deposits, and this second Amendment would bring the lending of money within the scope of Clause 10.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 19, after "securities," insert:
or lending or depositing money to or with any industrial and provident society or building society."—[Mr. Stanley.]

CLAUSE 11. —(Restriction on distribution of circulars relating to investments.)

6.20 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 12, line 22, to leave out from "which," to the second "and," in line 27, and to insert:
by virtue of the Companies Act, 1929, must conform to the requirements of Section thirty-five or Section three hundred and fifty-five of that Act with respect to the contents of prospectuses, or which in fact conforms to the requirements of either of those sections, or
(b) in relation to any document the issue or publication of which is required or authorised by any Act other than this Act or by any enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.

The object of this Amendment is to put the Clause in form and also to remove the difficulty which has been felt by people who have issued a prospectus in which they have really tried to comply with the requirements of the Companies Act, and yet might find themselves hit by the provisions of this Clause when there was obviously no criminal intent on their part. The Companies Act itself provides a method of dealing with any error that might be committed, and the revised words which we propose to insert here follow those used in the Companies Act for dealing with cases of that kind. The phrase "which in fact conforms to" would allow chartered companies and so on, which do not have to comply with the conditions as to prospectuses laid down in the Companies Act, to take advantage of Sub-section (2) of this Clause. The new paragraph (b) will free from the restrictions of the Clause offers and notices required to be sent by one company to the shareholders in another company, and this also follows Section 355 of the Companies Act, which provides for such offers and notices where an amalgamation is proposed. The wording of the paragraph is in general terms, and covers any circularisation required or authorised by any Act of the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 27, leave out the second "and," and insert:
(3) This section."—[The Solicitor-General.]

6.23 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 12, line 43, after "by," to insert "or to creditors of."
It is sometimes necessary for a company, in arranging with its creditors, to circularise them offering shares in satisfaction of their debts, and the object of the Amendment is to ensure that that process will not be prohibited.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 7, after "given," to insert:
by or on behalf of the manager of an authorised unit trust scheme.
This and the following Amendment are drafting Amendments, and can be taken together. They would make sub-paragraph (iv) reads as follows:


made or given by or on behalf of the manager of an authorised unit trust scheme with respect to any securities created in pursuance of that scheme.
Later on we propose to insert a definition of "manager."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 13, line 8, leave out from "of," to "or," in line 16, and insert "that scheme."

In line 26, leave out "securities," and insert:
shares in the share capital.

In line 27, after "or," insert:
loans or deposits which may be made to or with the society, or."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 29, after "by," to insert "or on behalf of."
This Amendment is almost a drafting Amendment. It has been suggested that, say, an accountant or solicitor acting for beneficiaries under a trust deed should not come within the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(viii) made or given with a view to a sale of securities by auction, or.
Sub-section (1) of Clause 11 would, as I understand it, prohibit any person from distributing or having in his possession any document containing an offer for sale or an invitation to sell. Auctioneers' catalogues, whether they are sent round or whether they lie about in the auction room, would, if they included any stocks or shares, come within the wording of Sub-section (1). If my right hon. Friend intends to stop altogether the sale of stocks and shares by auction, the Clause would stand as it is, but I should like to remind him that in that case it will interfere with existing business of an innocent kind, and, therefore, it seems to me that, in this Clause relating to documents, some exception ought to be made so as to enable these sales by auction to go on. I am not, of course, dealing with the person whom my right hon. Friend wants to have licensed because he makes a practice of dealing in stocks and shares by auction, but am taking the case of casual and occasional sales by auction,

say where there is included in an auctioneer's catalogue a block of shares or a reversion in a block of shares. As the Clause stands, even if such a thing be done casually, the unfortunate auctioneer who prints and circulates catalogues will, by the mere fact that they are in the auction room, be committing a criminal offence under the Bill, as will anyone who distributes them. I cannot imagine that that can be really intended. Unless my right hon. Friend thinks it necessary to stop the whole business of selling stocks and shares by auction, which I hardly imagine is the case, something of this sort is required in order to prevent a lot of innocent people from accidentally and unintentionally committing a criminal offence under the Bill.

Mr. Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.29 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. and gallant Friend will of course recognise that he is asking for an exception to be made to the general rule set up by the Clause, that you cannot circularise the public with regard to the sale of stocks and shares. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend appreciates that there is perhaps a difficulty as regards the position of an auctioneer under this Clause. There may be a case where, if there is a genuine trade of this kind, as I understand there is, it would be a hardship that every possibility of circularising should be closed. My right hon. Friend cannot accept this Amendment as it stands, but if my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw the Amendment he will look into the matter before the Bill reaches another place.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I would like to ask a question. Earlier to-day the hon. and learned Gentleman stated the case for the continuance of the right of these auctioneers to buy and sell shares without a licence under this Measure, continuing what would appear to be a recognised business conducted by these auctioneers. The Government, rightly in our view, refused to accept that, on the ground that it would open the door to a very dangerous practice. It might be that the existing auctioneers are very estimable men, but once this Bill is passed and you have


plugged up a large number of holes through which the share-pusher has crept, it might well be that the share-pusher would creep in through the door you would have opened in the auctioneers' sale rooms. I beg the Government to be very careful. I cannot see what is the auctioneer's difficulty. If he wants to continue what is the objection to registering? The bona fide auctioneer will get his licence. I cannot see what are the arguments that have weighed with the President of the Board of Trade to induce him to make an exception on this question with regard to auctioneers.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: Let me first make it plain that I am giving no pledge that in another place anything of this kind will be done. But it struck me when my hon. and learned Friend moved his Amendment that there was at any rate a point for investigation. I do not at all regret the arguments with which I rejected the previous Amendment. Dealing with a case where an auctioneer would be allowed to sell shares, I pointed out that if he did it only casually he would not come within the terms of the Act; he might be allowed to sell shares once or twice in the year, but he would not be allowed to set out a catalogue containing the shares that he was going to sell. It struck me that there, at any rate, was a case for investigation. I am not certain that anything can be or should be done, but to my mind there is a distinction between the proposed new Clause and Clause 11. That is why, although I asked the House to reject the proposed new Clause without giving any pledge, I think there is a case for investigation here.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Does what the right hon. Gentleman has just said cover the case where a public utility company promotes a Bill, which is considered upstairs, to increase its share capital, and one of the Clauses in the Bill provides that the shares shall be disposed of by public auction? Usually, these shares have a very limited appeal. They are usually disposed of by a public auction held in the neighbourhood in which the public utility undertaking operates. I do not think it could be said that an auctioneer disposing of shares in that particular way was carrying on a business, because he might do it only once in seven or 10 years. But one

might see advertisements of this kind of thing on the railway station near where the public utility undertaking is carried on. Would the right hon. Gentleman make quite sure that, for that very limited purpose, the auctioneer is not prohibited from making a public announcement that on a certain day he will be disposing of newly authorised capital for the public utility undertaking?

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Muff: I would like to amplify that, because in my own district I have noticed advertisements announcing the sale of effects of persons deceased, and I have noticed, in some cases, a small number of shares to be sold with other things. It may be a public utility company's shares, a few banking shares, or something of that kind. I have seen these advertisements in papers of the standing of the "Yorkshire Observer" and the "Yorkshire Post," announcing that a certain number of shares are to be sold by auction along with a grand piano or something like that.

6.37 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The point raised by the hon. Member who has just spoken is just the point my right hon. Friend is going to look into. It is the case of a casual sale by an auctioneer who might not have a licence. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I think that would probably be covered by the Bill as it stands, because the Bill exempts advertisements of such sales by or on behalf of a statutory or municipal corporation, and under the extended definition we are giving to statutory or municipal corporations I think his case would be met.

Mr. Spens: In view of my right hon. Friend's promise to look into the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made:

In page 13, line 38, after "in," insert "paragraph (a) of."

In line 41, leave out "or the doing of," and insert:
and nothing in paragraph (b) of this Sub-section shall authorise any person to do.

In page 14, line 13, at the end, insert:
(5) A person shall not he taken to contravene this Section by reason only that he


distributes documents to persons whose business involves the acquisition and disposal, or the holding, of securities (whether as principal or as agent), or causes documents to be distributed to such persons, or has documents in his possession for the purpose of distribution to such persons."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Banks, etc.)

7,25 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 16, line 8, to leave out "in Great Britain."
This is a Clause which provides for exemptions. As it stands at present it provides that an exemption can be granted to a person whose main business in Great Britain consists of certain specified activities, and who also deals in securities in one of the ways described in the latter part of the Clause. We propose to delete the words "in Great Britain" because it is not really material whether his main business is carried on in Great Britain or not. The important thing is that he is dealing in securities. If we left in the words, "in Great Britain," we should probably cut out institutions like mining and finance houses, which would not be able to say that their main business is done here. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) who stressed the

matter in Committee, and the Amendment I now propose is to implement a promise then made to deal with the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 16, line 11, to leave out from "on," to "the," in line 12, and to insert "some business other than."
The reason for this Amendment is that there is a rather tiresome rule of law which says that if you find in a Clause mention of one specific activity and then there are general words after it, there is an inclination to say that the general words ought to be construed in the light of the specific words. That might be the result in the present case if the specific word "banking" were retained. I therefore move that it be omitted and general words put in to replace it.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 16, line 26, to leave out from "securities" to the end of line 28.
This is an Amendment by which subparagraph (1) will be simplified.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 16, line 31, leave out from "dealer" to end of line 33;

In line 36, leave out from the first "the" to end of line 41, and insert "manager of an authorised unit trust scheme."

In line 41, at the end, insert:
(iv) a person actin on behalf of such a person as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (i), sub-paragraph (ii) or sub-paragraph (iii) of this paragraph, and."—[The Solicitor-General.]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 17, line 14, to leave out from "securities," to the end of line 21, and to insert:
or to purchase securities on the first sale thereof.
This provision deals with the type of business which may be done. It is necessary by this new arrangement to provide for a type of business which is not provided for in the Clause as it stands, that is, a type of business where a block of shares in a company is taken by a company or individual, and in which a note


or statement in lieu of a prospectus is published in the Press and an application subsequently made to the Stock Exchange for dealing in those securities. This type of business can only rank for exemption if such an application for these shares is granted by the Stock Exchange.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 17, line 29, after "acquisition," insert "and disposal, or the."

In line 29, leave out "and disposal."—[Mr. Stanley.]

7.32 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 18, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (3) and to insert:
(3) If, with respect to any exempted dealer, the Board of Trade consider that the order declaring him to be an exempted dealer ought to be revoked on either of the following grounds, that is to say—

(a) that the conditions subject to which the order was made have not been fulfilled in his case; and
(b) that the circumstances relevant to the making of the order have materially changed since the making thereof;
the Board may serve on the exempted dealer a written notice that they are considering the revocation of the order on that ground, specifying particulars of the non-fulfillment of the said conditions or of the change of the said circumstances, as the case may be, and inviting the exempted dealer to make to the Board, within the period of one month from the date of the service of the notice, any representations which he desires to make with respect to the proposed revocation of the order; and the Board may revoke the order after the expiration of the said period, but, before deciding whether or not to revoke the order, shall take into consideration any representations so made by the exempted dealer and, if he so requests, afford him an opportunity of being heard by the Board within that period.
This Amendment gives effect to a pledge I gave in Committee, where it was suggested that in the case of the revocation of an exemption there should be a right of appeal. I said that my right hon. Friend was not prepared to grant an appeal in the ordinary sense, but that he was prepared to insert in the Bill some check on the capricious use of the powers of revoking an exemption. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that there shall be an obligation to give a hearing, an obligation to proceed on the ordinary principles of natural justice. The effect of this proposal will be that if natural justice is affronted, and there is not a

proper hearing, if the President of the Board of Trade does not carry out the machinery provided by tie Bill, there can be an application to the court by way of certiorari, to compel him to give a proper hearing. The provision is not dissimilar from a Section which appears in similar legislation where a Minister is called upon to perform a function which is partly judicial and partly administrative. It has worked successfully in other forms of legislation and is a valuable check. I hope it will be accepted by the House as an implementation of the promise made in Committee.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: The Solicitor-General has not told us whether he would prevent a man whose licence has been revoked from going to the tribunal set up under the Bill. The Clause deals only with the revocation of an exemption. If a man has his exemption withdrawn he can, it is true, apply for a licence, and if his application is refused he can then go to the tribunal. Is not that a long, laborious and roundabout way of getting it done? Any man whose exemption is withdrawn has to go through the tortuous and roundabout way of getting a hearing by applying for a new licence. That is the procedure. Would it not be far simpler and better in everybody's interest if, when you revoke a licence—and I presume you will do so on very good and substantial grounds—you should give the man whose licence is revoked the right of going at once to the tribunal? In nine cases out of ten he would never go, because your grounds would be so substantial for taking away the licence, but in the tenth case, if an injustice were done, you would at any rate remove what appears to some of us to be repugnant in these proposals, that is, that the appellant should also be the judge. The Solicitor-General talks about "natural justice." I do not know what it means: it is a good phrase. But what is "natural justice" in this case? Is it natural justice that the Board of Trade, which has come to the conclusion to revoke a man's licence, is itself to hear whether the Board of Trade is wrong?

Mr. Stanley: It is not revoking a licence.

Mr. Johnston: Withdrawing a licence and revoking an exemption are, for all practical purposes, the same thing. All that this Amendment says is that if a


man's exemption is withdrawn the Board of Trade, who are the prosecutors, will also be the judge as well as the appellants in the case. If the words "natural justice" are to come into this discussion, I submit that they are irrelevant here. The President of the Board of Trade undoubtedly deserves the thanks of the community for the steps he has taken in this Bill, but I think he would be well advised to remove the slightest suspicion of bureaucracy from his Bill. I know that the only way you can administer a check on these rogues is to be able to act quickly and prevent long struggles in the law courts. I think the President is wrong in making the Board of Trade or any Government Department judge in its own case, and I submit that the Government would be well advised to give this hypothetical man, who has had his exemption withdrawn, the right, if he chooses to exercise it, of going to the tribunal which is set up by the Bill. It is not the Board of Trade but a tribunal of two lawyers appointed by the Lord Chancellor and a man appointed by the Treasury who is skilled in matters of finance, an impartial tribunal and, presumably, above reproach. Why not give him the right to go to this tribunal and remove the taunt that we are creating a hide-bound bureaucracy. In 99 cases out of 100 no injustice will be done, but in the hundredth case an injustice may take place and bring our whole efforts into public odium and disrepute. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might consider again whether it is not wise to take steps to make this an appeal to the tribunal rather than to the Board of Trade.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I will certainly think over the proposal between now and another stage. I would point out one thing which the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked in Clause 13. The giving of an exemption is the conveying of a privilege. A man has the right to go to the Board of Trade and apply for a licence, and without that licence he cannot carry on his work. In that case we have provided that if a licence is refused, he is able to go to the tribunal. An exemption stands on quite a different footing. It is a matter which is purely within the discretion of the Board of Trade. Unless a man belongs to a certain class and carries on a certain class of business, they

cannot give an exemption, but if he fulfils everyone of the conditions, then it is within the discretion of the Board of Trade whether they confer this privilege. If a privilege is withdrawn, it is not like the revocation of a licence, but I will think over the case which the right hon. Gentleman has put.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 18, line 15, at the end, insert:
so, however, that the said information shall be published not less often than once a year."—[Mr. Duncan.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Trustees of unit trusts.)

7.43 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 18, line 35, to leave out "in cash."
These words are unnecessary, because if the assets will meet the liabilities, it is immaterial whether the shares are paid for in cash or by consideration other than cash.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert:
(2) If, with respect to any corporation being an approved trustee of unit trusts, the Board of Trade consider that the order declaring the corporation to be such a trustee ought to be revoked on either of the following grounds, that is to say—

(a) that the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the preceding Sub-section are no longer fulfilled in the case of that corporation, or
(b) that the circumstances relevant to the making of an order have materially changed since the making thereof,
the Board may serve on the corporation a written notice that they are considering the revocation of the order on that ground, specifying the respect in which the said conditions are no longer fulfilled or the said circumstances have changed, as the case may be, and inviting the corporation to make to the Board, within the period of one month from the date of the service of the notice, any representations which the corporation desires to make with respect to the proposed revocation of the order; and the Board may revoke the order after the expiration of the said period, but, before deciding whether or not to revoke the order shall take into consideration any representations so made by the corporation and, if it so requests, afford it an opportunity of being heard by the Board within that period.
This is an exactly similar Amendment to that which I moved on the last Clause,


and provides machinery which will ensure that they cannot be dealt with arbitrarily.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 19, line 28, after "prescribed," insert:
(which shall not be less often that once a year).

In line 31, after "and," insert:
as soon as may be after any particulars have been furnished to them under this Subsection.

After "cause," insert "the particulars."

Leave out "at such times and."

In line 32, leave out from "proper," to end of line 33.—(Mr. Duncan.)

CLAUSE 20.—(Service of Notices.)

Amendments made:

In page 20, line 23, after "notice," insert "to be served."

In line 23, after "Act," insert "on any person."—[Mr. Cross.]

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, in page 20, line 24, after "post," to insert:
and a letter containing the notice shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to that person at his residence or place of business for the time being in Great Britain.
Under the Interpretation Act, 1889, service by post is deemed to be effective by properly addressing a letter. This Amendment is designed to define what "properly addressing" means for the purposes of the Bill. Hence the words which are added after the expression "properly addressed."

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Interpretation.)

Amendments made:

In page 21, line 18, leave out "a," and insert "an unincorporated."

In line 28, leave out "purchasing, selling," and insert "acquiring,"

In line 29, after "securities," insert:
or lending or depositing money to or with any industrial and provident society or building society.

In line 37, after "stock," insert "or."

In line 37, leave out "or other obligations."

In page 22, line 4, at the end, insert:
'manager of an authorised unit trust scheme' means the person in whom are

vested the powers of management relating to property for the time being subject to any trust created in pursuance of such a scheme."—[The Solicitor-General.]

7.48 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 22, line 6, after "London," to insert "the council of a metropolitan borough."
It is necessary to amplify the definition of a municipal corporation, because in the case of a metropolitan borough the council is incorporated and not the inhabitants. This Amendment is consequential on a later Amendment on the Paper to amend the definition of a statutory corporation.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 22, line 35, to leave out paragraph (c), and to insert:
(c) Rights (whether actual or contingent) in respect of money lent to, or deposited with, any industrial and provident society or building society,
Industrial and provident societies and building societies accept loans and deposits for which the lender sometimes receives no other acknowledgement than an entry in a passbook. In the case of building societies, there are also deposits by builders for excess advances and so on, and therefore, it is necessary to amend the definition here so as to cover all kinds of loans and deposits.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 23, line 2, leave out "or."

In line 2, after "(b)," insert "or paragraph (c)."

In line 9, leave out from "Ireland," to "and," in line 13, and insert:
or
(b) any other corporation, being a corporation to whom functions in respect of the carrying on of an undertaking are entrusted by such an Act or by an order made under, or confirmed by, such an Act;
but, save as is provided in paragraph (b) of this definition, does not include any company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1929, or of any corresponding enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.

In line 30, after "servant," insert "of, or to a person employed by, any person."

In line 31, leave out "a person being."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I must confess that this Motion comes rather as a surprise to me, since I had no knowledge that the Third Reading was to be taken to-night.

Mr. Stanley: I think the Prime Minister stated at Question Time that one of the purposes for which the Eleven o' Clock Rule was suspended was the Report stage and Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Johnston: I was not aware of that, and I was going by the Order Paper, which simply refers to the Report stage being taken. However, after the long discussions on the various Amendments to the Bill, there is no need to take up very much time on the Third Reading of what is, after all, an agreed Measure. If ever again I should revert to the writing of that ephemeral and ill-requited type of literature known as the "blood," I should not go to Chicago for my gangsters, for I could get them among the 170 odd firms which the Bodkin Committee reported to have been operating as sharepushers in the City of London since the end of the War. There have always been sharps and flats, always the skinners and the skinned, but the conscienceless rascality and effrontery with which, year after year, City sharks have operated in sharepushing rubbishy shares upon innocent investors almost passes belief.
We had some difficulty for a time in interesting the House in this matter, partly because many hon. Members in all parts of the House believed that the victims of sharepushing deserved what they got, because they were investing out of greed; and there was very little sympathy for them. Many people also believed that it was only the well-off, the middle class and rich people, who were caught by sharepushers. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade knows that is not so. Many of my hon. Friends believed that it meant very little to the poor whether these gangsters "got away with it" or not, and that there were other more urgent subjects that ought to receive the attention of Parliament. In my view that was not so.
Mr. Hooley, of the Jubilee Mills fraud, has told us that some £10,000,000 was lost in the cotton mills ramp after the War, and the experience which the cotton mill industry went through in those days,

when the financial sharks were there, has left the industry in a very stricken position and has been one of the contributing factors—I put it no higher—to the position in which Lancashire finds itself to-day. Then there was Mr. Hatry, who conducted the surgical operation upon Jute Industries, Limited, which left in a parlous condition the city that I once represented in the House. Millions of money dis-disappeared there. Then there were British Glass Industries, the Drapery Trust, and Allied Iron Foundries, Limited, all of which trades and industries were hit by the operations of those financial gangsters. Those companies were blacklisted on the London Stock Exchange.
Then there were Bottomley, Lee Bevan, James White—who called dukes by their pet names—Lowenstein, and Kreuger; and now there are the lesser fry whose activities have caused this Bill to be produced—Jacob Factor, and Spiro—who pretty well skinned my own division through the MacLean and Henderson case; he went up to Stirling, took over under an assumed name that old-established firm of stockbrokers, did not let it be known that he had purchased it, and, using the old name and the old firm's notepaper robbed hundreds of unsuspecting clients, many of whom had been on the firm's books for generations. Then there were Tanfield and Guylee, and many others of whom hon. Members have heard.
I am under no delusions that this Measure will stop absolutely the flat-catcher. In the first place, the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. I hope there will be complementary legislation there. Nor does it apply to Eire. Let us be careful that the sharepushers do not emigrate from this country to Cork, and operate from there. Nor will it apply to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, or worst of all, to Canada. We have had experience in recent years of sharks who have come from Montreal and operated on the British public. There is a great deal to be done internationally in this matter, and indeed a great deal to be done within the British Empire before we can say that sharepushing is stamped out. Operations have already begun, as the President of the Board of Trade is no doubt aware. I have not asked him any questions on the subject in the House, but I suppose he has received some of the fancy literature that is coming from Jamaica. After the Bill was introduced,


the sharks stopped operating in London. They are quiet for the moment, but there is no doubt that they will operate on us, if we permit it, from outside these shores. Here is "Tropical Units, Limited" writing from St. Ann's Bay, Jamaica:
Your name has been submitted to us by Somerset House.
They go to the list of shareholders in Somerset House and get the name and having thus used the name of Somerset House, they proceed to say:
In Jamaica we have more public roads per square mile than any other country in the world."'
Why that should be an extra inducement to people to grow bananas I do not know, but you are further informed that if you will only contribute towards this firm's £50,0000 of shares, you may reckon on it as an absolute certainty that in a year and a half all the capital will have been paid off and there will be nothing but profit, "except," to use their own words, "for labour, which is very low." It may be true that people who fall for this kind of thing and send money abroad deserve to lose it. It may also be true that we cannot take any steps through the postal service, but I think that the officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department might, reasonably, get in touch with the Dominions Office about this matter. The Dominions Office ought to help in stamping out this kind of thing.

Mr. Stanley: The case which the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted is a Colonial case.

Mr. Johnston: The Colonial Office ought to help, and the Dominions Office, too. If the old guard begin to operate again from Montreal or anywhere else, I hope that not only the Board of Trade and Scotland Yard will deal with the matter, but that the whole force of the Governments in the British Empire will be used to stamp out this kind of thing. I have said that the poor suffer in this way. Spinsters, widows, recipients of lump sum compensation, have lost their all, and how have the Government dealt with it? First, we had the Greene Committee presided over by the Master of the Rolls. They sought to stamp out the evil by stopping the hawking of shares from door to door. Under the Companies Act the Government endeavoured to stop share-hawking from house to house, but that, as the Bodkin Committee say, is a dead letter. Lawyers get round it. They

ask, what does "door to door" mean? If you miss a door you are safe; if you go to a street in one town to-day and a street in another town to-morrow, you are safe. All sorts of legal dexterities have been devised to enable the hawk and the rogue to get away with it.
I was exceedingly glad when the right hon. Gentleman became President of the Board of Trade, because up to the time of his arrival in that office, we never could get a Government prosecution in London of a share shark. We were always told, "You must get the victims to initiate and pay for the prosecution." What a farce to say to people who had already been robbed of their all that they must pay the expenses of a prosecution. I give the right hon. Gentleman full marks for what he has done in that respect. It was not until he arrived in his present office that we began to "get a move on" in dealing with this matter in the City of London. I will not say to whose credit or to whose discredit it is, but nothing happened even then, until three highly-placed police officers in the City of London had to be removed. It was done quietly and efficiently, but after those steps were taken, observe what happened. About 50 of these groups of rogues were rushed by the police—and very efficiently Scotland Yard did it. A number of them bolted abroad, some to America, some to Mexico, some to France and some to Switzerland, but a number were caught, and I think I am right in saying that at this moment between 20 and 30 of them are languishing in gaol. It is true that we never get the money back. The victims have lost their all and my hon. Friends and I would like to see the Government, instead of introducing only what I may call post-robbery legislation, designed to punish the sharks, also bring forward complementary legislation for a national investment board to make it easy for poor people to place their money where they know it will be used honestly for public purposes—not asking for heavy rates of interest, but asking for safety.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman in proposing those alternatives is talking about things which are not in the Bill, and that is not in order on the Third Reading.

Mr. Johnston: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and it was only as


an aside that I was suggesting that if the right hon. Gentleman had been well-advised, he would have brought in complementary legislation to make it easier for people to invest their money safely, instead of confining himself to spending public time and public money upon what may be highly necessary in itself, the punishment of the rogues after the roguery has been committed. However, I do not wish to appear to be looking a gift-horse in the mouth. My hon. Friends and I welcome this legislation. It is belated, but we give it our blessing. We hope that it will be efficiently administered and that the impulse which the right hon. Gentleman has given in his Department and the aid which has been given to Scotland Yard in this matter, will be continued. We hope that the shame and the scandal of permitting 177 of these known gangs to operate in the city of London, the very citadel of the British Empire, will no longer be permitted. It is a disgrace which has afflicted us for too long, and if this Measure does nothing else but stop it, the time that has been spent upon the Bill by the House will have been well spent.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. White: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that although this Bill marks a great advance and is a very useful Measure, it probably will not put an end to the endeavours of rogues to benefit from, and exploit the ignorance and cupidity of, some unfortunate individuals. In fact, the ingenuity of these rogues is such that I never cease to speculate on the heights to which they might attain, if they devoted their energies and intelligence to honest purposes. I think the House may congratulate itself on having accomplished a very difficult piece of work. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had a difficult task in drafting legislation to deal with these cool and calculated frauds, without trespassing on entirely legitimate enterprise which might be much hampered if brought within the sphere of such legislation. As far as I can judge, the right hon. Gentleman and the House have been successful in that task. Apart from that difficulty, there was also the difficulty that we were called upon to legislate on matters arising out of the two human weaknesses which I have already mentioned, namely, cupidity and ignor-

ance. Each is a great misfortune, when an individual suffers from one or other separately, but in combination they provide a magnificent bait for those who seek to exploit human weakness.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has reminded the House of some major and also some minor scandals of recent years which he has taken a considerable part in bringing to the notice of the public. This Measure has already had a beneficial effect, if I can judge from my own experience. I get far fewer letters informing me that I am a specially selected investor. The first time I got such a letter I felt flattered by it. It was, I felt, the first time I had been specially selected for anything. But when I realised that I was specially selected because it was assumed that I had some money in my pocket which might be transferred to the writer's pocket, I found I was not being particularly complimented. When this Bill becomes an Act and passes into the field of administration, constant vigilance will be required to see that these frauds do not creep in again.
The right hon. Gentleman said some of these people were beginning to operate from Jamaica. I have had two communications from the City of London which strike me as being very interesting. They reached me a day or two before Christmas and are almost identical in form. The only difference is in the titles. They have two magnificent titles calculated to inspire confidence among the ignorant, namely "The Stock Exchange Joint Securities Corporation, Limited," and "The National Securities Corporation, Limited." These two bodies have the same address and the same telephone number and both are members of the Stockbrokers' Association, that is to say, the body for which this Bill specially provides. The letterpress is identical and the same shares are offered in both letters. About the only difference is that in one case there are three directors and in the other case two, but the directors of one are also directors of the other. This kind of thing will still be possible even under the Measure when it becomes law. Therefore, I say constant vigilance will be necessary if loopholes are not to be found by those whose ingenuity has been so successful in the past. Nevertheless, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his


success in producing this Measure. I recognise that it has not been easy. He has had to overcome many difficulties, and I hope this Measure will do away with a great many of the scandals which have arisen, and the frauds which have been perpetrated in recent years.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I should like to add my tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for what I think is an excellent piece of work. Compliments have been rightly paid to the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he would be the first to say that praise is also due to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) and to Members generally for the way in which they have brought the Bill to its present stage. It seems to me that much of the success or otherwise of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will depend upon the energy with which it is administered, and I hope that, when these people recover from their fright and seek ways and means of trying to evade the new law, if they are clever enough to find the answers to the questions which we are all asking in our own minds, every effort will be made by the police, by the Dominions Office, by the Colonial Office, by the use of the wireless, and in any other way to inform the public whenever a new gang appears on the horizon.
I heard of a case of a special warning on the wireless to beware of share-pushers, and a widow afterwards gave evidence that she was so alarmed by having heard over the wireless that this sort of thing was going on that she came up to London from the West of England to visit the share-pusher's office. She told him that she was concerned about what she had heard on the wireless, and the share-pusher replied that it was he who had "arranged with Sir Thomas Inskip" to put that wireless across in order to warn the public. The net result was that the lady left after investing a yet further sum of money with that gentleman. That indicates the kind of person that Parliament is up against.
The only other point that I wish to make is that I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be encouraged by his success in piloting this Bill through the House, and the co-operation afforded him by Members of all parties in the House in the endeavour to strengthen the

Bill, to undertake a general amendment of the Companies Act, which is so very much overdue.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: As one who took part during the proceedings in Committee upstairs in offering what I hope was constructive criticism, I should like to add a few remarks. The sharepushers are, I consider, only a small part of the fraternity who from time to time, in various disguises, make depredations on the funds of investors, and I would remind the House that this Bill deals in a very radical way with more than those people who extract money by this hawking of shares. For instance, if hon. Members will look at the Title of the Bill, they will find that it has to deal with "regulating the business of dealing in securities." Now for the first time we have attempted to tackle a very powerful vested interest, namely, the dealers in stocks and shares, who, as hon. Members will know, have now to be licensed, with the exception of those who can claim exemption by virtue of their membership of recognised and well-run stock exchanges. Secondly, this Bill reconstructs the activities of those societies which have hitherto been registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, and I consider that that feature of the Bill alone will make a radical change in the methods adopted by many of those societies which have been able to get far bigger money from the public than even the swindlers referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), and to do it under the cheap and easy camouflage of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act.
Let hon. Members cast their minds back to very recent days and consider the effects which have resulted from the actions of far bigger people than these sharepushers. One gentleman who has just been released from gaol almost upset our whole financial system by far bigger operations than those of the gentlemen who have been named by my right hon. Friend, and another gentleman, a late member of another place, by his operations defrauded the public of far bigger sums than those mentioned by the Bodkin Committee. I think the House will realise that this stable in the City of London, a city which is so proud of its reputation, required some cleansing. I


will not say how far this Bill will cleanse that stable. I believe it will have certain effects, but, like my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling, I am under no delusions in the matter. This Bill will not stop swindling on an extensive scale. Hon. Members can see for themselves the loopholes which will occur, even under the company law, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade himself possibly knows how, even under the Companies Act of 1929, it is still possible for large-scale operations to take place whereby, even after this Bill becomes law, the investing public can be swindled out of money.
That leads me to my concluding remarks. I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) has said, that this Bill is only a step towards a much wider alteration of the law, namely, an alteration of the company law, and although it would be out of order at this stage to say too much on that feature of our laws, nevertheless I hope the right hon. Gentleman, after this Bill has gone through and he has had some experience of its operation, will bring in those very necessary Amendments which he himself has admitted in this House from time to time to be desirable, if we are going to get a better functioning of our company law and investments. I would like to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I think he has met all the points that we of the Opposition have offered very reasonably. From my own experience of him in Committee upstairs, I can say that he has been willing to listen to any constructive suggestions that have been made, from whatever quarter they have come, and I think that he, with his large experience of the City of London, has been able to accept some of the things that were brought to his attention and so to make the Bill a better Bill than it was when it was first introduced. I hope the Bill will effect all that the right hon. Gentleman expects it to effect, but I certainly hope that he can give us an assurance that it is only one step in the direction which the House has been desiring to take for a long time past, namely, the reform of the company law.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I would, first of all, explain to the right hon. Gentleman the Member

for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) that I am sorry he should have been taken by surprise at the Third Reading of the Bill being moved at this time. I thought he was fully informed of the course of business this afternoon. Very fortunately, this is not controversial business, and I hope it has not caused hon. Members any inconvenience that they should not have been aware that it was proposed to take the Third Reading right away. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a most interesting list of fraudulent financiers and of the different devices which they have employed in the past. They were a number of examples which he derived from his own unequalled knowledge of the subject, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing at the same time recognition of the very important part which the right hon. Gentleman has taken in calling public attention to these evils. I call it typical of his appetite and of his zeal in these matters that, no sooner had we approached the Third Reading of this Bill than he was turning his attention to tackling the whole world.
That brings me to the particular point that he raised about the possibility of these activities being transferred from the United Kingdom to countries overseas. The right hon. Gentleman said it is possible that these rogues will transfer their activities to Northern Ireland, the Channel Isles, Canada, Eire, the Isle of Man and elsewhere, and will send circulars to this country. It is difficult to see how one can protect the people of this country from being swindled if they are foolish enough to send their money outside the country merely on the strength of having received circulars. The danger is a small one, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out because he has had more experience of this than I have. Only to a very small extent, I believe, has money been sent overseas through the medium simply of circulars. The real danger rests, as we have been told a good many times, from the process of touting or following up upon the circular. Without the tout and the follow-up upon the circular there is not really a great danger. This Bill prevents the sending of circulars from the United Kingdom to countries overseas, and it seems to me that the only practical method of preventing the import of literature of this kind is for our friends


in other countries to pass parallel prohibitions against the issue of circulars in their countries. The right hon. Gentleman said, and I agree with him, that postal control is not a practical method. My right hon. Friend authorises me to say that he will give the most careful consideration to suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman has made in that connection, and to approach the appropriate Government Departments to see what can be done to further that idea.
This has been a very difficult Measure and a number of hon. Members have said in winding up that it will not stop all swindling. We are fully conscious of that, and, indeed, we have had a narrower aim than that throughout the Bill, but I am not seeking to enter into controversy because I appreciate what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) said on that point. The various stages of the Bill have been marked by an extraordinary and exceptional degree of co-operation between all parties. We have had a common object in suppressing the sharepusher while not interfering with the multitude of honest transactions that take place every day of the week. This general desire to improve the Bill has been productive of many helpful suggestions. We ought to congratulate ourselves on having had the advantage of the help of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston), who has a knowledge on this subject which none of the rest of us can claim to rival. It will be agreed that my right hon. Friend has given effect to a large number of the suggestions that have been made to him. We may be confident that this Measure has emerged from its different stages more effective in its provisions to ensure the protection of legitimate business. I hope now, with the application of the powers which we shall shortly have gained through this Bill, we shall be able to drive these rogues out of business once and for all.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

BACON INDUSTRY (AMEND MENT) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend Section twenty-eight of the Bacon Industry Act, 1938, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, and into the Exchequer, of such sums as may become so payable by virtue of the following retrospective amendments of that Section, that is to say, amendments—

(a) increasing the ninety-four shillings and ninepence mentioned in Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof by one penny for every shilling by which the ascertained lard price for the month falls below sixty-five shillings per hundredweight and diminishing the said ninety-four shillings and nine-pence by one penny for every shilling by which the ascertained lard price for the month rises above sixty-five shillings per hundredweight;
(b) increasing the ninety-three shillings and ninepence mentioned in those Subsections by one penny for every shilling by which the ascertained lard price for the month falls below sixty-three shillings per hundredweight and diminishing it by one penny for every shilling by which the ascertained lard price for the month rises above sixty-three shillings per hundredweight;
(c) increasing the ninety-one shillings and ninepence mentioned in those Subsections by one penny for every shilling by which the ascertained lard price for the month falls below fifty-nine shillings per hundredweight and diminishing it by one penny for every shilling by which the ascertained lard price for the month rises above fifty-nine shillings per hundredweight;
(d) redefining the expression 'the ascertained bacon price';
(e) providing that there shall be deemed to have been produced from a pig a weight of bacon arrived at by ascertaining the total weight of bacon made from specified pigs and apportioning it among them in proportion to their respective dead weights.
In this Resolution, the expression 'the ascertained lard price for the month' means a price (calculated to the nearest shilling per hundredweight, any odd sixpence per hundredweight being disregarded) representing the average of the prices at which during the month such descriptions of lard as are specified in regulations were sold by wholesale on such markets in Great Britain as are so specified."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Sir R. Dorman-Smith.]

8.31 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I am moving this Resolution on behalf of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary


to the Treasury. It provides the necessary financial authority for payments by and receipt to the Exchequer in respect of proposals embodied in the Bacon Industry (Amendment) Bill, which received a Second reading in this House on 9th February. The House will not expect me to go into the detailed proposals because we had them before us so recently. The first three paragraphs of the Resolution deal with the lard price insurance scheme, which is the main feature of the Bill. It may be well to remind the Committee that under the principal Act the curers have been insulated for three years against movements in the prices of bacon in order that they may be able to pay pig producers the fixed prices provided for in the Act. The Committee will be aware that certain notional prices have been settled and that the curers received money equal to any fall in those prices. If bacon prices rose, they paid to the Exchequer the amount of the rise.
In the scheme, although bacon itself was insulated, the offals were not, and lard, next to bacon, forms one of the most important products which is manufactured from the pig. There has, unfortunately from the curers' point of view, been a tremendous fall in the price of lard. During last year there was a sustained fall, and the price is now about 20s. per cwt. below that which was ruling when the structure of the Bacon Industry Act was settled. It is proposed, therefore, to bring lard into the shelter of this insulation plan, and just as we fixed a notional price for bacon, so a notional price will be fixed for lard, tapering in the same way as the bacon prices tapered. The price will start off as fixed at 65s. per cwt. for lard, which is the same as it has been for the last 16 years. Broadly speaking, the purpose of this Resolution is that for every shilling by which the ascertained price of lard falls below the notional price, the curers will get one penny more from the Exchequer per cwt. of bacon. For every shilling by which the ascertained price of lard rises above the notional price, the bacon price will be diminished by one penny.
With regard to paragraph (d), I invite the Committee to look at the Amendment which appears on the Order Paper. It seeks to re-define the ascertained bacon price which appears in Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the principal Act. It has

been found on re-examination of the Act that there are in the principal Act, certain loopholes which might operate to the disadvantage of the Exchequer. It is proposed there to define the expression "ascertained bacon prices," and the regulations may provide for the ascertainment of the average market value to curers of tank-cured green Wiltshire bacon made from pigs produced in Great Britain, so that it may give to the Development Board a discretion to ignore what we may describe as "evasive" sales. The last paragraph provides the cover for any small financial changes which may be the result of a proposal in Clause 1 to allow curers to weigh their bacon in bulk and thus to facilitate their claims under the principal Act. Those are the main points in the Resolution and I hope that I have given a sufficient explanation of it for hon. Members opposite.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I do not need to keep the Committee more than a moment or two, because under the procedure now in operation, by which the Second Reading of a Bill is taken first and the Financial Resolution follows it, I am afraid that we have even less power than we had before to get any effective Amendment introduced into the Financial Resolution. [Interruption.] Well, that is how it seems to me. In this case we had a Debate on Second Reading in which we had no offer from the Government to introduce even wider amending legislation than that which is in the Bill, and I do not see that we can effectively move an Amendment—I think the Chairman will agree upon this—which is not in accordance with the Title and purposes of the Bill. That is my real difficulty to-night. I do not think that the amending Bill for which this makes the monetary provision goes far enough. We quite see that it is essential to pass this legislation, at least in order to meet the lard situation, following upon the American Agreement, but in view of the serious administrative difficulties which have arisen and which affect merchants, some of us think that the Minister, especially as he has come new to that office and is therefore, perhaps, unprejudiced by the action of his predecessors, might have given us a better show.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Captain Wallace.]

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I think we should take this opportunity of making one or two comments upon the Bill. In the course of the previous Debates upon the Bill a good deal has been said with regard to the agreement which was signed at Munich and of which this Bill is a direct result. It is true that that agreement may have staved off a conflict, but no one will deny that it was at a terrible price—at any rate a terrible price for Czecho-Slovakia. That country, in-habited by a courageous people, to-day finds itself reduced to both economic and political dependence upon its powerful neighbour, Germany. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) has described its situation as being one of vassalage. Whether one agrees with that term or not, I think one must agree that Czecho-Slovakia has at any rate been brought within the German political orbit, and that its freedom of political and economic action has been very much restricted.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member too soon or unnecessarily, but I must remind him that he must confine himself on Third Reading to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Henderson: I am merely stating this by way of illustrating the fact that this Bill was made necessary by reason of what took place at Munich. The object of the Bill is to provide a measure of assistance to Czecho-Slovakia as a consequence of the agreement at Munich. To-day this financial assistance has become of vital importance to Czecho-Slovakia because of the problems with which that country finds itself confronted. We know that at the present time there are probably 700,000 Czechs, on the other side of the border, who are now living in Greater Germany, and there has been created a problem which regard to the right to opt. It was dealt with in Committee the other night, and I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not dealt with in the Bill.

Mr. Henderson: Do I understand that it is not possible to discuss to-night the question of the optants?

Mr. Benn: On that point of Order. Has it not been repeatedly said by the Government and is it not the case that the monetary provision in this Bill is for the service of the said optants?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be. As long as the hon. Member confines himself strictly to what is in the Bill he will be in order, but I was inclined to think that he was going a little beyond that. Discussion of such questions as were raised by the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday would not be in order on the Third Reading.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that we are entitled to ask the Chancellor to give the House what information he has with regard to the number of optants who may be affected by the financial provisions authorised by the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may put that question and then perhaps he had better try to go on—or stop soon after, rather than be stopped by the Chair.

Mr. Henderson: I hope that the Chancellor will be able to give the House to-night the information that was asked for last night during the Committee stage, with regard to the present situation of these unfortunate people who have been denied the right to opt. In conclusion, I would ask the Chancellor, if I am in order, to realise that the problem with which the Bill seeks to deal is only part of one which is of vital importance to other countries as well as to Czecho-Slovakia. On this side of the House we support the Bill not only because we believe it will be of some assistance to that gallant little nation struggling against terrible odds to maintain its independence, both political and economic, but because we realise that there are other nations, such as Hungary, Roumania and Yugoslavia, who may well be placed in almost similar conditions in the future, and that only by our country interesting itself in the affairs of the Danubian Basin, of which Czecho-Slovakia forms a part, may we be able to bring about that measure


of appeasement in Central and Eastern Europe which the Prime Minister has said it is his policy to carry through.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I do not want to cover any of the ground which has been covered by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson), but I hope that the Chancellor when he replies may be able to give us some reassurance on the very important and grave question of the optants. I hope he will also give some assurance as to the speeding up of the process by which this money will be utilised for the benefit of refugees now in Czecho-Slovakia. I think that the whole House is at one in gratitude that this measure of help is being rendered to people who are in such distress. There is no difference in any quarter that this help should be given as speedily as possible; but the Government are perhaps not fully aware of the urgency of the need of the people who are in camps at the present time in Czecho-Slovakia, and that steps ought to be taken at once to see that this money is made available without delay for their benefit.
I saw a letter to-day written from Prague on Sunday of this week, describing the conditions of thousands of those unfortunate people, who are barely existing, the need is so great. Many, or it may be all, of them are the very people for whom the money provided under the Bill is intended, and something should be done through the representative of the Government in Prague to speed up the help for these people while they are in Czecho-Slovakia. I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use his influence to see that the regulations of the Home Office in regard to the admission into this country of refugees who come under the Bill, and who will be going into Canada and elsewhere, should be made easy. It is extremely difficult for them to get the necessary visas, and the delays seem interminable to some of those poor people who are waiting in conditions of semi-starvation, physical need and mental distress. I hope that the Government can implement this financial help and secure that it shall be speedily supplied to the sufferers.
I hope also that the Government will do their best to see that the regulations which at present hinder transmigrants from coming to this country on their way

to the Dominions and elsewhere are revised in the interests of these refugees. They will give twice, because they will be giving quickly. I hope that the Chancellor may be able to reassure the House upon the effectiveness of the help that the Bill is intended to give.

8.51 p.m.

Major Mills: The Bill authorises a sum of £4,000,000 to be given by this country to Czecho-Slovakia. I want to raise a constitutional point in connection with that matter, although I am not an authority on constitutional questions. The point has been put to me by an eminent King's Counsel, eminent, although he is no longer in practice at the Bar, and I feel that it ought to be mentioned in this House. It was not mentioned on the Second Reading. He tells me that it is a constitutional maxim well-established that every Member of the House is bound to speak and vote with due regard to what he believes to be the real interests of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its subjects—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Hear, hear. Time you did—

Major Mills: —and not to vote on such subjects unless he is satisfied that it is for the benefit of the Kingdom. In the Second Reading Debate every speaker, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), made it clear that they were supporting the Bill from sentimental reasons and out of sympathy with the Czecho-Slovakians, desiring to do everything they could to help them. They had not considered whether the burden was to enure for the benefit of the people of this Kingdom or not, the people who have to pay the taxes. I do not know whether there is any precedent for a loan of this nature. The Czechs may be helped by it to become our trade competitors. When we enter into trade agreements we may expect to get benefits in proportion to what we give. This is different.
Of course it is true that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries this country did give subsidies to foreign countries to fight its battles, against France particularly, as well as sending troops itself, but in that case the payments were of course, justified because there was a direct British interest, that of the maintenance of the balance of power. There is also


in the minds of all of us another parallel, namely the gift of £100,000 to the refugees from Spain. I do not want it to be thought that I am opposing this gift; I think it should be given if we are able to do so; but I would like to have some assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that I may feel that the constitutional point, if it exists, has been met, and that we can vote for the Bill with an easy conscience.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I am somewhat astonished by the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills). I have always thought that the argument of the Government for what I regard as the disgraceful betrayal of last September was that by it they were doing something which was of immense benefit to the whole population of this country, and, above all, to the people of London, who otherwise were going to be bombed. That was the whole argument—that Czecho-Slovakia was to be sacrificed to save us. Is it really decent to come along now and grudge Czecho-Slovakia this little bit of help, so petty in comparison with all that she has lost? I think that the hon. and gallant Member can vote with quite an easy conscience for this Measure tonight, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give him reasons—no doubt different from those which I have given, or at any rate differently phrased—which will make him feel perfectly happy and comfortable. I must say, however, that I listened to him with very considerable astonishment. This was only a very much post-dated cheque for a very small portion of what was really owing.
There will, of course, be available for the benefit of refugees in Czecho-Slovakia a very much larger sum than is available for refugees in any other part of the world, and I think that one value of that will be that a precedent will have been set. No doubt circumstances will differ, but we are helping Czecho-Slovakia on a very large scale, and lessons are going to be learned from the experience which will be very useful in dealing with other refugee problems that arise. As my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) said just now, it is not enough merely to provide the money for emigrating these refugees. They

have to have somewhere to go, and it has not been possible up to date to find many places in the world where they can go. It will not be possible for this money which we are proposing to vote to-night to be expended unless at the same time the Government take the necessary steps for providing places to which the refugees can go.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to me the other day, in dealing with this Bill—I forget on which stage, but I think it was the Financial Resolution—to work himself up almost into a state of ecstasy over the meritorious course we were taking. He seemed to think that we were doing something really large and fine in giving this money at all. I hope, however, that none of us will think that that is the case. Do not let us imagine that we are doing anything to be proud of. Let us forget about the whole thing from that point of view as quickly as possible. There is no honour to be got out of it by anyone concerned, whatever view they may take of the transaction last September. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give us some information about the point which was put to him concerning the optants. It is not clear what exactly the Bill means in that regard—whether it is that the money is actually available under the Bill for those persons and whether the Germans will not allow it to be so expended, or whether there is some possibility that it is not only so available, but may in fact in some cases be so expended. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance that that is the case.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Benn: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not propose to speak, I should like to ask one or two questions. I thought that they might have been answered in the course of his speech, and that it might be possible to save the time of the House. Apparently he does not propose to speak, and I am not surprised, because this Bill refers to one of the most tragic and shameful episodes in our recent history. Questions were asked yesterday with regard to the optants, and the relevance of that is that this money is voted for the optants. We learned yesterday that the largest and most desperately situated section of the optants, namely, the Germans and non-Nazi Germans, are not eligible at all.


This was brought about under the control of a Commission on which we had our own representative, and was done by an agreement. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he does not want to speak, will at any rate not attempt to interfere with me by suggesting that what I am saying is out of order. That is a matter for the Chair. I think that on this occasion, when we are dealing with a serious subject, he might perhaps abandon that attitude.
As regards the optants, we know for a fact that the German optants are not going to benefit at all. That is a shameful thing. These men, who took our word, are not going to benefit, and they are for the concentration camp. As regards Czech optants, under the agreement between the Germans and the Czechs there is a chance that people of Czech race may be able to opt. We were told twice, once by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and once by the Under-Secretary, that so earnest was the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this that he was making special inquiries. I should like him to tell us what the result of those inquiries has been.
Another point is that under this Bill we are to have a quarterly account from the Czech Government of the way in which this money has been used. A great deal of it has been at the disposal of the Czech Government for more than a quarter up to the present date. It was placed at their disposal immediately, on a note of hand, so to speak. The hon. and gallant Member opposite who raised a constitutional point about the subsidies to foreign armies in Pitt's wars in the eighteenth century will be interested to know that it was given by a note of hand, by a private arrangement between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England. He need not have been distressed by what his friend the King's Counsel told him. He was not asked whether he agreed; all that was done behind the scenes, and is being ratified by this Bill under an arrangement which cannot be upset even by the House of Commons, because it appears to be out of order to move an Amendment to that effect.
I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, to tell us whether he has received any report from the Czech

Government. They have had £10,000,000 since some time in October, and many people are afraid that some of that money will not be spent for the benefit of Czech refugees, but for the general purposes of the State, which is undoubtedly, as my hon. Friend has said, in economic subjection to Germany. We should like to know what this report is, if such a report has been received; or, if no such report has been received, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to tell us when he expects such a report.

9.4 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills) raised a point which, he explained, gave him some concern, and I would like in two or three sentences to deal with that point first. It had been pointed out to him by a friend that he was advised that some constitutional issue would be involved if the House of Commons were to pass this Bill to-night, a course of which, I think, my hon. and gallant Friend is personally disposed to approve. The suggestion, I understand, is that there will be something improper from the constitutional point of view in the House providing money by way of gift for the benefit of people who are not British subjects. I do not think there is anything in that constitutional point at all. Certainly, it is a process which we have adopted many times in our history. My hon. and gallant Friend was good enough to drop me a note stating that he was concerned about this, and I have found a couple of instances in recent times. In 1937, on the Civil Estimates, there was a grant in aid of the expenses of settlement of Assyrians from Iraq, and a sum of money was provided and voted—not a loan at all, but as a pure gift from public funds in order to help the settlement of these unfortunate people, the Assyrians. The Iraq Government also contributed. That is exactly the same kind of point, even to the extent that there was a second Government which made a contribution as well as ourselves.
Here is another case. In 1922, there was a grant for famine relief in Russia. In that case, it was stores which were at the disposal of the Government which were handed over for the relief of those suffering from famine in Russia, but it


cannot make any difference, from the constitutional point of view, whether you hand over stores bought and paid for by the British taxpayers, or money. I certainly would subscribe, and the whole House would subscribe, to the doctrine that any Member giving any vote in this House ought to vote only in accordance with what he conceives to be the public interest of the people of this country. Any difficulty there might be depends on the view one takes as to what is the public interest. I think it is, in the widest and best sense, in the interests of this country to do what we can to get the Czecho-Slovak State placed on a sound economic basis, and more particularly to help them to deal with the problem of refugees. I think the House as a whole would be of the same feeling.
Then I was asked whether I could give any information to show what progress is being made in dealing with the problem. I have here one or two figures to which I think the House might like to listen. As the House knows, Mr. Stopford has been appointed for the express purpose of attending to this matter on the spot in Prague. He was in Prague at an earlier stage for another purpose, and he has now returned there. I have a message from him which I will give the House now:
Dr. Pospisil and officials of the Ministry of Finance and the Refugee Institutions
—that being the institutions specially created by the Czecho-Slovak Government for the refugees—
have seen me and have authorised me to send you a message to say that a scheme for the disposal of the loan is being prepared by them. They have invited me to give them any help I can in the matter.
He gives me express authority from the authorities there to inform the House of Commons to that extent. I think that is an indication that they really are going to make these plans as quickly as possible.
Then I was asked as to the numbers of the refugees to be dealt with. I cannot give any precise information, but it is believed that the total number of refugees in Czecho-Slovakia which that Government may have to deal with, one way or another, amounts to something like 186,000. It is believed that refugees of the Czech race amount to 150,000. By far the greater number of those undoubtedly will remain in the country. People of the Czech race naturally, for the

most part, wish to settle there, and that is, of course, the purpose of the £8,000,000 loan to which I have referred. There are believed to be about 19,000 altogether of German race. Of those, it is believed that about 6,000 originally came from Germany to the area now ceded, and have now moved on again. The other 13,000 of German race moved in from the ceded area, but did not necessarily come originally from the Reich. The figure for Jews is given as 15,000, and of Hungarians as 2,000.
These figures are not necessarily exact, but they give the House some idea of the nature of the problem. I saw Mr. Stopford and asked him to send me, if he could, some figures to give the House, and this is the message I have received from him. The number who have already left Czecho-Slovakia is about 5,500. As hon. Members who have taken an interest in the subject know, there are quite a number of others—I cannot give any estimate of the figure—who are ready to leave but have not been able to do so, because they were not able to produce in the countries to which they wanted to go that minimum sum of money which is insisted on before persons are admitted. Of this money that we are providing, £4,000,000 would be in sterling, so that it would enable money for this purpose to be very promptly produced.
I have not desired at any stage of the Bill to claim more credit for this Bill than the House generally is entitled to. I think it is a mistake of some of us who feel deeply, and, indeed, who speak strongly, to minimise and belittle the character of this effort. It is, in fact, substantial. No other country, so far as I know, apart from France, has made such an effort as this, and I believe the effort is made not because the Government have a majority in the House but because it is the view of the House that it should be made. I can well understand the anxieties and the distresses to which hon. Members in different parts of the House have given vent, but I do not think that, on the Third Reading of this Bill, where, I understand, I have to deal with what the Bill contains and provides, I am in the least called upon to go over again the matters which we discussed on the Amendment which was moved on the Committee stage. I do not propose to do that, but I ask the House to give this Bill the Third Reading, as has been the


case in the other stages of the Bill without any dissenting voice. I think that whatever may be the opinions of hon. Members, all will agree in this, that we do most sincerely hope that this Bill will bring a great deal of relief.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

CHIEF DIVISIONAL FOOD OFFICER, LONDON.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Furness.]

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I desire to raise a matter which, I think, is of considerable public interest, namely, the position of the Chief Divisional Food Officer for London and the Home Counties, Major-General Sir Reginald Ford. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome this opportunity of explaining to the House and to the country exactly the position of this General, who, although he seems only to have a part-time post in peace time, may, in the event of war, be called upon to regulate and distribute the food supplies of London, and perhaps a much wider area.
On Tuesday of last week I inquired of the right hon. Gentleman the domicile of this General, and I was told that he is at present living in Brussels. In reply to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) the right hon. Gentleman assured us that the appointment was not an ornamental one, and by that I understand that the appoint is one of some importance. To-day the right hon. Gentleman informed the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that he receives a retaining fee of 250 guineas per annum for whatever services he may be doing either in Brussels or in London during peace time. The 250 guineas per annum, I take it, is exclusive of expenses. I presume that even if he were in London there would be certain expenses to which he would be entitled. Although the right hon. Gentleman referred to this figure of

250 guineas per annum as a small retaining fee, and perhaps it is to one in the position of the General, nevertheless, it is a fairly substantial sum of money judging by the lack of duties which this General has to perform.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman what exactly are the duties of General Sir Reginald Ford in peace time, because on that will turn a great deal of our criticism? But even if his duties are not substantial, as an officer in a position in charge of a staff, or, even if he is not in charge of a staff, at any rate responsible for plans being prepared by a staff of some 130. I presume that his position is one of some importance. I presume also that in war time this General would have a full-time appointment. If I am correct in that, I am bound to ask what are the qualifications of this officer? I understand that he is an officer who has had considerable experience in the Army—I believe in the Army Service Corps. He is also of the age of 70. According to the Government we need not expect an early war, and if that is true, this General will be of some far advanced age by the time war breaks out, when he will be called upon to give his full activities to the appointment. Whatever the abilities and qualifications of this General—and I am not going to dispute that he may have some considerable abilities, otherwise the right hon. Gentleman would not have appointed such a man to the position—the fact remains that the officer himself does not consider his duties of sufficient importance to warrant his living in this country. In response to some questions which have been put to him by Press reporters, which I will read presently to the House, he seems to think that this is not really a job of work which he has to do, but merely a leisured occupation to which he can attend as he thinks fit. Although the 250 guineas may not be sufficient for a job of this kind, nevertheless, he should give some fair services in return for the money which is being paid to him.
As to his qualifications the right hon. Gentleman told the House last week that he had had considerable experience and that that was one of the reasons why he had been appointed. It is interesting to know that whatever his experience might have been in days gone by, it is


some 18 years since he left the Army, and it is quite possible, in fact, I believe I am right in saying, that since the General has left the Army, transport services and food supplies—food supplies for London in war time—may have assumed proportions quite different from the experiences which the General gained in the last War.
I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. Is the nature of this appointment and is the residence of this officer likely to inspire public confidence? Whatever justification the right hon. Gentleman may give for the General living temporarily in Belgium, the fact remains that he has a very important title, he has 250 guineas a year, and he will have a post which will be of considerable importance in war time. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in these circumstances, what effect does he think the residence of Sir Reginald Ford in Belgium at a time like this is going to have on the public? I will quote some of the General's own words, because they are rather interesting. I quote from the "Evening Standard" of Saturday, 21st January, when evidently some curious reporter telephoned the General and asked what he thought of his appointment and of conducting his job 250 miles away from London. This is what the General is reported to have said:
Heavens, man, I can get to London quicker than I could if I lived in Scotland. I have done it four times already since I came here a few weeks ago.
I do not know how many appearances this General has put in at his office since his appointment, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us the details?
All I've got to do is hop in an airplane, and in less than three hours I'm sitting in my office in Westminster.

Mr. Thurtle: What about foggy weather?

Mr. Bellenger: Possibly the General has not taken the chances of foggy weather into account:
When I'm wanted in London I catch the 10 a.m. airplane at Brussels and am in my office at 12.30 p.m. As a traveller I have always loved Belgium, so I have come over here for several months to see if I like the country enough to settle down.
When I read that last sentence I got a considerable shock. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to me last week to say that the General was

only living in Brussels temporarily for private reasons. It would, perhaps, be indelicate to inquire into the reasons but, nevertheless, this last sentence rather indicates that he has it in his mind not to reside temporarily in Brussels but to find a permanent home there, presumably in peace or war—it does not matter which. I should like the House to consider the effect of such widely-quoted statements on public opinion in this country, particularly in London and the Home Counties, for whose food supplies this General will be responsible in war time. We are being asked by the Government to volunteer our services, not for 250 guineas but for nothing, in the national interest and to give our services on the spot. What would the House or the public think if we allowed our responsible people, even such people as air-raid wardens or fire brigade officers, to say nothing of members of the Cabinet, to conduct the administration of their offices from a place like Brussels, even though it is possible to "hop into an aeroplane" and be here in two and a-half hours?
I suggest that the attitude that the General is taking up is an insult to public opinion. It is an affront to all those well-meaning people who have the interests of their country at heart, and who are responding to the Government's call and giving their leisure time at no cost to the country, when they hear that their food controller in war time is now living in Brussels. Moreover, the method of this appointment and the attitude of this General lend colour to the Government's critics on their own side and on this in their allegation, which has often been made here and outside, that the Government are not really proceeding with their plans for an emergency, which we all know may be imminent, with that expedition and that responsibility that they ought to be doing in face of the difficulties that are confronting the country.
I shall be very interested to hear the explanation of the strange circumstances that surround this General, one of our departmental controllers, who lives abroad, but I do not think, whatever explanation the right hon. Gentleman has to give, he can really defend an appointment of this kind, on the grounds that I have mentioned—the age of the General and the long time that has elapsed since he left the Army, and secondly, perhaps the more important point, that he should


be conducting whatever duties he may have to perform in peace time from Brussels, and not with any day-to-day contact with the problems that must be arising in the Department for the rationing of London and the Home Counties in time of war.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member was quite right when he said that I would welcome the opportunity that has been taken of discussing this appointment, which arose from a question that he asked last week and on which there has been considerable Press comment. I appreciate very much the manner in which he has raised the point. He has quite obviously not raised it in order to make party capital or a personal attack, but because he wants an explanation, and he thinks it of considerable public importance. The first thing that we have to consider—because there is a great deal of misapprehension about it—is, what are in fact the peacetime duties of this particular post? The hon. Member will be aware that the country, under the scheme got out by my Department, has been divided into a number of areas in each of which there is a divisional food officer. I need not trouble the House with a description of the rest of the plan, with the local food committees and local officers, who will usually be local authority representatives, and those committees which will usually consist of either consumers or those interested in the food trade in the particular locality. But in each area there will also be a divisional food officer, and in time of war it will be his duty to take charge of that area under either the Board of Trade or a Ministry of Food if it is by then set up. In the London area we have superimposed upon the three divisional food officers who will represent the three areas into which London is divided another post, that occupied by Sir Reginald Ford, the chief divisional officer.
The duties of a divisional officer in peace-time are not very great. When we talk about paying these officers a retaining fee that in fact is what it is. It is not so much a payment for the services that they render in peace-time but payment to ensure that when a war starts they will be able to undertake the whole-time job of divisional officers. Divisional officers, and still less the Chief Divisional

Officer in London, have no responsibility for the preparation of plans for the distribution of food supplies in an emergency. The preparation of plans is being undertaken by my Food Defence Department with the assistance, and largely on the advice, of those who are experienced in the various commodities concerned, although, of course, the Divisional Food Officer is called into consultation and actually has to be conversant with the plans as they develop. The ordinary divisional food officer, who will be responsible for his particular area, has in addition, naturally, responsibility for getting into touch with the people who are designated to become food officers in war-time and he, like the other people, is in peace-time carrying on with his ordinary job. It is quite a delusion to think that the divisional food officer or the Chief Divisional Food Officer, has a daily routine to go through or that he has any staff under him at all.
When the hon. Member talked of a staff of 130 I think he was quoting from the flights of fancy of a daily newspaper which described in almost pathetic terms how its representative went into this office with 130 people sitting anxiously, like Sister Anne in the Tower, saying, "When is he coming?" He was the man to whom they all owed authority—this Chief Divisional Food Officer. As a matter of fact, that office was the office of my Food Defence Department, and those 130 people are employed in my Department and Sir Reginald Ford has as much connection with them as the food divisional officer in Glasgow. He has no staff and no responsibility for the preparation of these plans. His duties in peace-time are that he should keep in touch with the plans as they develop, that he should be available for consultation and conference and, of course, that he should be acquainted with the views and the personalities of the three divisional food officers who are under him. Whereas the ordinary divisional food officer will in the course of his duties come into contact with the local food officer and the local food committee and therefore in peace-time must establish some contact with them, in war-time this gentleman will be more in the nature of a co-ordinator between the three divisional officers in London and the three areas in London, and will come little in contact with the local committees. I thought that it would be useful to explain the duties


in peace-time and war-time of this gentleman, because there has been a great deal of misapprehension as to what they are.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) interrupted and said that we pay him a salary of £5 a week. This is not so much a payment for services which are being rendered, as—

Mr. E. Smith: It is a lot compared with the treatment of our own unemployed. There is too much of this kind of thing going on.

Mr. Stanley: Compare it with the salary the hon. Member is getting.

Mr. E. Smith: The hon. Member earns his salary as well as anybody else in the House.

Mr. Stanley: If we are going to relate every payment that is made to the treatment of the unemployed, let us do it for all of us. This is a retaining fee, partly for the service he renders now and in anticipation of the services he will render if the emergency arises. In regard to this gentleman's qualifications, I stated that he had a special qualification with respect to transport. He has experience in regard to a form of transport which is unique. He was largely responsible during the War in France for the whole of the transportation of munitions and stores up to the line.
You may find a number of other people who have considerable experience of transport under peace conditions, but Sir Reginald Ford has had the unique experience of transport under war conditions in the bringing of food and materials into place, under risk of heavy fire and under extremely disturbed conditions. The sort of problem which is going to concern the Chief Divisional Food Officer in London, whoever he may be, in war time, is exactly the kind of problem—the distribution and availability of food and the moving of food from the ports up to the outskirts of the different areas—with which Sir Reginald Ford had to deal during the War. The sort of problem that he would have to meet in war time is the sort of problem that he had to meet in the last War—the difficulty of bringing up stores when communications are interrupted by enemy action, and the switching over of lines of supply from one side to another. Therefore, he has an experience which is unique in this

country. The hon. Member said that transport has changed since Sir Reginald Ford knew it. The answer it that he has held a post under the Ministry of Transport in connection with the transport services. Therefore, I do not think that he will be found to be out of date.
Then there is the question of age. It is said that this gentleman is nearly 70, and is much too old. That is an argument that will not appeal to hon. Members on this side of the House, because we are well aware of what has been done by a right hon. Gentleman of 70 who has shown in the past few months as much vigour, both physical and mental, as is possessed by any younger man. When I appointed this gentleman I considered he had very special qualifications for the position.

Mr. Bellenger: When was he appointed?

Mr. Stanley: In the Autumn. I had to consider, when I made the appointment, whether he was a good man for the job and what difference to his qualifications for his job was made by the fact that thereafter he elected to take up his residence in Brussels. In view of that fact I knew quite well, if I still continued him in his post, exactly what would be said. I have been in Parliament and in public life a very considerable time, and when I came to the decision to continue this gentleman in his post I could have made the very speeches that have since been made, and I could have made the same comment that has been made in the newspapers. It would have been perfectly easy for me, if Sir Reginald had been willing, to have said: "This makes all the difference, and I am afraid I cannot now have you." By so doing I should have avoided criticism; but merely to avoid criticism is not the highest principle of administration to adopt.
I had to consider, having got a man who was well qualified for the job, whether, apart altogether from gossip or perhaps prejudice, the fact that he was residing in Brussels really did disqualify him. In regard to his peace-time duties, I made certain that his residence in Brussels was no obstacle. He has no staff and has no routine work. His job is that of attending conferences, having consultations and keeping in touch with his food officers, and it is not a difficult matter for him to come over from a country which may have seemed very distant in the days of sailing boats or even steamboats, but


which in these days of aeroplanes is really not so far away. The real thing which I had to consider, and here I admit the real consideration arose, was how easy it would be to get him over here if and when the emergency arose?

Mr. George Griffiths: Who pays for his flying fare from and to Brussels?

Mr. Stanley: He gets his expenses paid, as he would if he lived, say, in the West of England or in Scotland, which would be no cheaper than the expense of travelling from Brussels. I am certain that during the time when we are preparing plans for the crisis which hon. Members opposite tell us we must expect at almost any moment, the fact of his temporary residence in Brussels does not disqualify him, and that he is enabled to carry on his job. In regard to the duration of the appointment, about which I have been asked a question, it is terminable by agreement between the two sides on three months' notice at any time.
The hon. Member says that this gentleman may not be too old now, but that when the war comes, if it is a long time ahead, he will then be long past the age for such a job. I can tell the House at once that it has never been in the mind of Sir Reginald Ford or in my mind that this appointment, in view of his age, was for a very long period. I am, however, quite certain that during the months ahead, in the critical time which we have to face, nothing could be worse from the point of view of the administration of our plans than the continual changing of personnel. I am convinced that this gentleman has special qualifications for the job, that he is able to perform his duties in existing circumstances and that in an emergency he would be available for the work which he would be called upon to do.

Mr. Cartland: Before my right hon. Friend made the appointment, when it was in his mind, did he ask Sir Reginald Ford, who I imagine is in receipt of a pension from the War Office, whether he would do these duties in peace time on a voluntary basis, although, naturally, it would be understood that his expenses would be met? Was he asked to forego this retaining fee of £250 during peace time?

Mr. Stanley: He was not asked to, because for a considerable period all food officers have been paid a retaining fee. He was put on the same basis as other divisional officers.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Mander: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt very fully and clearly with the position as he sees it, but none the less I think he has failed to grasp the real objections which are taken to this particular appointment. It is not the individual but the impression which the appointment makes on the mind of the public in relation to the recruiting programme of the Government. I am sincerely anxious to see the voluntary National Service scheme of the Government a success, but this is not the kind of thing which is going to assist them at all. We have had the publication of the National Service booklet and having accomplished that the Government seem to have sat back and felt that they had done a good piece of work. Really nothing has been happening during the last few weeks. It has been disappointing, rather disturbing. One would imagine that there would have been large public meetings pointing out the seriousness of the situation and the urgency of the problem, but as far as I know no big public meeting has been held except the one at which the Minister of Labour was howled down last night at Manchester.

Sir Joseph Nall: He was not howled down.

Mr. Mander: Considerably interrupted. From the broad point of the success of the National Service scheme a little thing like this is going to have a most damaging effect in making people think, perhaps wrongly, that the Government are not serious about it and that they are quite prepared to appoint officers who are going to live abroad. That is the way in which it will strike the ordinary man. He will not think of the many reasons, many excellent reasons no doubt, which the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward tonight. I should like to ask him whether we are to consider this as a sample of the kind of appointments the Government are going to make? On this basis, suppose you have a large number of other officers connected with home defence receiving a retaining fee, will it be in order for, say, a dozen or 100 of them to live in a foreign country, to live abroad? I


think the Government have set a precedent which it may be impossible to refuse to others.
The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the question put to him by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) when he quoted from an article in the "Evening Standard" in which Sir Reginald Ford said that he was going to consider the question of settling down in Belgium. If he settles down in Belgium or lives there for any considerable period of time he will not only be receiving 250 guineas a year as a retaining fee, he will not only be receiving his Imperial Airways expenses, if he goes by that route to Belgium and back, but he will not be liable to pay British Income Tax or Surtax—he will avoid that. If that is the position it will be in the minds of the public a scandal that a person holding an important position in our defence system should be apparently so little interested that the Government think it unnecessary to insist on his living here. I was not clear on one point. Although I think the right hon. Gentleman meant that the fee of 250 guineas is payable now, in peace time, in war time, if he were fully employed, he would still not receive more than 250 guineas. Is that correct?

Mr. Stanley: No, it would be more than that in war time.

Mr. Mander: That makes it all the more extraordinary. What point is there in paying him a retaining fees if he is going to be well paid when he starts doing a job of work over here? It is difficult to see that he is such an extraordinary person that his services at all costs must be retained and that he might go into a still more remote portion of the world, dig himself in, and not be available for any of the services for which he is destined. I think the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised in the national interest to think this matter over and consider the effect on public opinion. I think he would be wise to terminate this arrangement, or at any rate to arrange that Sir Reginald Ford should live over here. I do not know whether he was invited to live over here when the appointment was made, and refused. We have not had information on that point.

Mr. Stanley: I made it quite clear that he elected to live in Belgium after his appointment.

Mr. Mander: It seems that Sir Reginald Ford decided, after the appointment was made, that he would live in Belgium and that no successful appeal was made to him to remain in this country. I am making an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider what has been said and realise that not only in front of him but behind him there are many people who cannot understand the meaning of this arrangement. I am sure the public will not understand it, and I hope he will bring it to an end as soon as he can.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I have been rather concerned about the way the discussion has gone, and more perturbed than ever by the attitude adopted by the President of the Board of Trade. I am glad that he appreciated the manner and the spirit in which my hon. Friend raised this question, and I want to assure him that in whatever I say I do not seek in any way to cast any reflection on the personal capacity of Sir Reginald Ford, or upon the manner in which the staff of the Food Defence Council have done their job. I can speak from great personal experience because I have been, so to speak, under the net of the Food Defence plans for three years—not three months—and out of all the services with which I have come into contact during the last three years in the preparation for any outbreak of hostilities none has been better forward or better served than the Food Defence Plans Department. It does not matter to what party we belong, when we find good work being done we should say so. But on this particular appointment made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am simply astonished to learn, after three years, that it has been made, and I beg the President of the Board of Trade to think over what has been said to-night in relation to what he and his Department are asking of other people.
Reference has been made to the general National Service Scheme on a voluntary basis. I am not thinking of that, although it is vital. I am thinking of the services of his Food Defence Department. He rightly said that they are having a great deal of valuable help, detailed, continuous help, from the leaders of trade. The President of the Board of Trade does not pay them. He does not pay even their expenses. A large number of leaders of industry, many of them, of course, belonging to the party opposite,


have given their time, their staff and their brains to this subject for nearly three years. I pay my tribute to them for their public service. To tell them, at the end of nearly three years, that three months ago you appointed a retired Army officer, of the rank of General, in receipt of a pension well over £1,000 a year, and that it is necessary, in order to retain his good offices, to pay him an annual fee on top of his pension in order to keep him, a retired officer, free to serve the country in time of war, is a most extraordinary situation.
Moreover, what I have said about the leaders of industry who have been helping the President of the Board of Trade in this Department does not finish with their personal services. It must be remembered that what those people in industry are doing with the Food Defence Plans Department would have the direct result of their seconding, in time of war, their full-time senior officials. The right hon. Gentleman knows, or ought to know, that his very excellent chief, Sir Henry French, has a whole list of people already seconded from all kinds of commodity trades, whom the particular firms, trade associations and trade organisations, are willing to release full time to the Government when war breaks out. What is the retaining fee paid either to the firms or the individuals? I should be glad to hear an answer to that. Is there any retaining fee? As far as I know, not a penny. What is the reason for this particular retaining fee? I cannot for the life of me understand how the President of the Board of Trade thinks he can justify this retaining fee either in logic or in justice.

Mr. Broad: It is the distribution of the spoils of office.

Mr. Alexander: When some of us have to go to people in the employ of our organisations and ask them whether they will consent to be full-time seconded officers to the Government in war time, and persuade them to promise that, we are not asked to offer them a retaining fee. We ask them to serve their country. Surely, we ought not to have a lower standard than that when dealing with a retired officer having a pension of over £1,000 a year. That is the case which I put to the right hon. Gentleman, and it is not an isolated case. When my hon.
Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) interrupted once or twice during the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman departed from the usual courteous style which he adopts in replying to such interruptions from my hon. Friends. I beg him to consider whether the reference he made to my hon. Friend was quite kind or quite apposite to the case.

Mr. E. Smith: It will do me good; it has reminded me of the people to whom I belong.

Mr. Alexander: I beg the right hon. Gentleman to see that the two cases are entirely different.

Mr. Stanley: Certainly, I did not intend to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), but although I appreciate the argument which the right hon. Gentleman is making as to whether we ought to pay this gentleman 250 guineas a year or whether divisional food officers should have been paid retaining fees, I do not think the argument is served by comparing these sums with the money which we pay to the unemployed. For that reason, I suggested that if we are going to make any comparison it should not be with the unemployed, but with ourselves.

Mr. Alexander: The reply I was going to make to the right hon. Gentleman was that if we make a comparison with ourselves, certainly on this side of the House hon. Members are doing a job; they are not abroad, but are dealing with their daily duties in the House of Commons, always on tap. They are doing their duties in their constituencies; and they are paying very heavy expenses out of their salary. The gentleman in question, who is unemployed from one point of view, is not in London; he has a very nice pension; he is living abroad, and he comes over only when he is urgently requested to do so, and then at the first-class rate of the flying services. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's case has not been very good on that point.
I do not think this is the spirit in which we ought to continue our national service for our country. I do not think that any of those—I think I might call them friends of mine, although they are in opposite businesses and in another


political party—whom I have continuously met during the last three years in regard to services to the Food Defence Plans Department, ought to have put before them the kind of spirit that is revealed in this particular appointment. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade does not really believe that this particular appointment is indispensable. There are other people who have considerable qualifications with regard to transport and who have thought much about transport, particularly communications in the London area and the communications behind London, and know a great deal about the subject. To say to people outside that we want them to serve the country and to make it safe, and then to appoint pensioned Army officers, allow them to be out of the country, and give them a retaining fee and first-class expenses every time they come back, is completely wrong. I am anxious to continue the voluntary spirit for the national good, but if it is to be continued, then let us have it all round.

10.3 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: I do not directly associate myself with the motives or arguments advanced by those who initiated the Debate, nor do I differ from the reasons which my right hon. Friend has given in regard to this appointment; but I think the matter goes further and that there are other questions which ought to be in the minds of Ministers when they make appointments of this sort. I happen to sit on certain committees connected with these matters, and different Departments have urged the appointment of full-time officers for certain appointments. When one considers the circumstances of this particular appointment, one must have regard to the effect which these things have on the public mind at a time when citizens are being asked voluntarily to serve in different capacities.
I do not know anything about Sir Reginald Ford's qualifications. It may be that my right hon. Friend is right when he says that Sir Reginald Ford had experience of transport during the last War of such a nature as to render his advice invaluable in any emergency which might arise, but it is ludicrous to suppose that he is the only person available. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport must know more than a dozen persons with War experience and present-day civil ex-

perience of transport who are far more qualified to do this job, and who would be only too glad to give their services and advice without any retaining fee and without any pension. But when we come to the further consideration of what the effect of this must be on public opinion, I think my right hon. Friend ought to reconsider the matter. It is well known that many gallant officers who have served their country, when they retire choose, for their own reasons, to live abroad. It is well known that being domiciled abroad they save considerably on British taxation and it really is not decent to pay a further retaining fee to somebody who is availing himself of that privilege, who is living abroad and is relieving himself of some part of the taxation to which he would be liable if he lived here.
If it is necessary to retain someone who can give advice in these matters, that person, at least, ought to be domiciled in this country. It is no part of our business to say to an individual "You must come here because we want you here." The individual is entitled to live where he pleases, but if, as is the case, a number of offices must be filled in skeleton and if advice must be sought from time to time for the purpose of perfecting schemes which may have to be put into operation at short notice, at least those individuals ought to be here on the spot, and they ought not to be suspect in public opinion on this matter of taxation. Without unduly criticising the particular circumstances of this case, I hope that my right hon. Friend will review this matter and that the other Departments concerned will take note of what has been said, and in filling these vacancies where they exist will not be prone to pay retaining fes to anybody at all. I hope they will explore fully, which they have not yet done, the possibilities of the tremendous reservoir of capacity and ability which can be drawn upon for voluntary service and which if properly used would be much more efficient in the public interest. This is only one of these things which has come up, and I do hope that not only my right hon. Friend in this matter of the food supply will take note of what has been said, but that the Ministry of Transport and some other Departments will have regard to this matter and will do what they have been advised from many quarters to do, and


that is to appoint immediately part-time officers to these emergency positions, so that we shall not have to sit here again listening to criticisms of the kind we have heard to-night.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Thurtle: I wish to add my voice to the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman on the ground of public interest to reconsider this matter. He said that hon. Members on this side had not spoken from any party point of view, but I can assure him of this—that, from the party point of view, there is nothing we would like better than to see him persist in this appointment under present conditions. It is really a gorgeous case from the point of view of party propaganda. Here is a retired General with a pension of over £1,000 a year, holding a very responsible position in connection with food supplies in war time and living over in Brussels and when he feels under the necessity of coming here he is paid first-class fare on the air service. That is really a gorgeous point to make if we wanted to attack the Government upon it, but I do not think we are looking at it from that point of view. We are looking at it more from the point of view of public confidence. There is a great lack of public confidence in the measures which the Government are supposed to be taking to safeguard national interests in times of emergency and this question of food supplies, particularly as far as London is concerned, is one of the most important. When a fact like this comes out it makes the people of London think that the whole thing is a farce. If you talk to people on buses and in the streets about this sort of thing they make all sorts of facetious and cynical comments because they do not think that the Government can be earnest if they allow a man holding such a responsible position to live "as far away as Brussels is." From the point of view of the vital necessity of restoring public confidence and from the point of view of the welfare of his own Government, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think again and to find some reasonable way of terminating this appointment at the earliest possible moment.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Broad: I feel that something ought to be said on the point of the age of this gentleman. Very few people, if any, over

70 years of age are capable of undertaking the immense strain which would be imposed upon the holder of such an office as this if war should come. Carrying on with this job would involve a 24-hour day. I know that people talk about past war service, but if you have an old charger which has carried you through many battles in the past, and if, when he is past his prime, you take one more chance with him, your horse may go down at the knees and you may break your neck. That, I am afraid, will be the position as far as such a man is concerned. Many of us who sit on these benches have felt it to be our duty to join county committees with regard to national service. We have appealed to people to do various kinds of work and some of those people who already have to work very hard, are joining voluntarily in that service. One of the most important jobs in the event of war would be demolition and clearance where buildings have fallen and only men who are accustomed to that work can do it properly. These men know how to put up sheer legs and do work of that kind and we are asking these men to train squads for such jobs in case of emergency. There is no proposition that they should be paid retaining fees, but because this gentleman, forsooth, is one of the gentleman class, he is to be paid £250 a year as a retaining fee.
If that is to be the policy, I say that I should be more concerned about going on the platform and denouncing the Government on this account, than about urging people to join for national defence service in such circumstances. It does seem to be the case that those who are already well placed, if there is anything to be done will not do it unless they get something out of it and if that is the position, how are we to ask other people to give their service? There are those of us who have joined in national service and are doing our best to secure the enlistment of others in the national service and cases like this will put us in a very equivocal position. That is why I feel so indignant about it. I hope the Minister will see whether it is not possible to find a younger man, a man who is in personal contact with transport in this country, and not a man who is living miles away from this country. I hope that he will be able to find a man who is fit to undertake this task and who will not, if war should


come, break down under the task and leave us in the lurch. I hope the Minister will realise that feeling all round the House and undertake to reconsider this matter and make a more suitable appointment of some patriotic gentleman who is prepared to pledge his services without a retaining fee.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I am sorry the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) made use of some of the phrases of which he did make use, because I think that, with that exception, the Debate which has taken place, and which was started by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), has been entirely removed from any question of either party or person. I hope I may take it that neither from any of the speakers nor in any quarter of the House is anything felt against the gentleman who has been given this appointment. I am sure hon. Members will

permit me to say that if there is anything wrong with either the principle, or the appointment, or the salary, or whatever it is, the responsibility is mine for offering the job to this gentleman and for asking him to stay on the job, and not his for accepting it, and that responsibility I am prepared to bear. Hon. Members will not, I am sure, expect me to say anything more to-night, but I have been deeply impressed by some of the speeches that have been made, by the spirit in which they have been made, and by the fears, quite unconnected with this appointment, which hon. Members obviously feel, and I can only say that I will consider the speeches in the same spirit as that in which the speeches were made.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Ten o' Clock.